{"id":5747,"date":"2025-02-23T09:29:07","date_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:29:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-199-367-16-c-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-23T09:29:07","modified_gmt":"2025-02-23T07:29:07","slug":"case-no-199-367-16-c-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-199-367-16-c-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 199\/367\/16-c dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Issuance of a Duplicate Writ of Execution for a Credit Agreement, which the Bank Considers Lost.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The executive document was indeed lost during postal transmission, as evidenced by official documents from the state executive service.<br \/>\n2. The time limit for presenting the executive document has not been missed due to martial law in Ukraine, which temporarily suspends the course of procedural terms.<br \/>\n3. The bank repeatedly attempted to obtain a duplicate writ of execution, which demonstrates the good faith of its intentions.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To satisfy the cassation appeal of PrivatBank and issue a duplicate writ of execution regarding the debtor PERSON_1.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125264985\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Issuance of a Duplicate Writ of Execution for a Credit Agreement, which the Bank Considers Lost. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The executive document was indeed lost during postal transmission, as evidenced by official documents from the state executive service. 2. The time limit for presenting the executive document has not&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-5747","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\/5747","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=5747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}