{"id":5735,"date":"2025-02-23T09:23:31","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:23:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-904-3756-24-dated-19-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:23:31","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:23:31","slug":"case-no-904-3756-24-dated-19-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-904-3756-24-dated-19-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 904\/3756\/24 dated 19\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Pledge Right and Obligation to Take Actions Regarding Corporate Rights in the Authorized Capital of LLC &#8220;Borivazh&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The court emphasized that interim measures cannot be challenged on grounds of jurisdiction violation separately from the decision on the merits of the case.<br \/>\n2. When deciding on interim measures, the court must assess the reasonableness of the applicant&#8217;s arguments, adhering to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.<br \/>\n3. The Court of Appeal incorrectly revoked the order on interim measures without examining the substantive circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the Court of Appeal and refer the case for a new review to the appellate commercial court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264887\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Pledge Right and Obligation to Take Actions Regarding Corporate Rights in the Authorized Capital of LLC &#8220;Borivazh&#8221;. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The court emphasized that interim measures cannot be challenged on grounds of jurisdiction violation separately from the decision on the merits of the case. 2. When deciding&hellip;<\/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_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5735","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\/5735","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=5735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}