{"id":5725,"date":"2025-02-23T09:17:11","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:17:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-904-2618-24-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:17:11","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:17:11","slug":"case-no-904-2618-24-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-904-2618-24-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 904\/2618\/24 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to secure a claim to declare invalid a service procurement contract between the Department of Improvement and LLC “Avtomahistral 2016” by prohibiting any actions under this contract.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and indicated that prohibiting contract performance violates the presumption of transaction legitimacy. The Court emphasized that such interim measures: 1) do not correspond to the principle of reasonableness; 2) violate the balance of parties’ interests; 3) essentially interfere with economic activity; 4) prematurely substitute a court decision.<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of previous instances and completely denied the prosecutor’s request for interim measures.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to secure a claim to declare invalid a service procurement contract between the Department of Improvement and LLC “Avtomahistral 2016” by prohibiting any actions under this contract. 2. Key Court Arguments: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5725"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}