{"id":5743,"date":"2025-02-23T09:27:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:27:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-906-593-24-dated-14-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:27:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:27:35","slug":"case-no-906-593-24-dated-14-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-906-593-24-dated-14-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 906\/593\/24 dated 14\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a Road Repair Services Procurement Contract Concluded between the Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service in Zhytomyr Oblast and Integral Systems LLC.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<br \/>\n1. The court established that prohibiting contract performance during judicial review violates the principle of presumption of legal validity of a transaction and contractual obligation.<br \/>\n2. Implementing interim measures in the form of a complete prohibition of contract performance effectively resolves the dispute on the merits before rendering a decision.<br \/>\n3. Such measures create unlawful obstacles to the implementation of the contract parties&#8217; rights and make it impossible to fulfill their obligations.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Rescind the appellate court&#8217;s ruling on interim measures and uphold the local commercial court&#8217;s decision to reject the prosecutor&#8217;s application.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264617\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a Road Repair Services Procurement Contract Concluded between the Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service in Zhytomyr Oblast and Integral Systems LLC. Main Court Arguments: 1. The court established that prohibiting contract performance during judicial review violates the principle of presumption of legal validity of a transaction and contractual obligation. 2.&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-5743","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\/5743","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=5743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}