{"id":5775,"date":"2025-02-24T09:20:19","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:20:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-226-1856-23-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T09:20:19","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:20:19","slug":"case-no-226-1856-23-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-226-1856-23-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 226\/1856\/23 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Prosecutor&#8217;s appeal against a court decision on releasing a person from serving a suspended sentence for evading conscription during mobilization.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the decisions of previous instances, considering that the suspension of punishment is justified by several factors &#8211; the person works at critical infrastructure (coal enterprise), has no previous criminal record, has a minor child, the probation authority assessed the risks as moderate, and also taking into account the importance of economic support for the state during martial law.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To leave the previous court decisions unchanged and to reject the prosecutor&#8217;s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125296275\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the Dispute: Prosecutor&#8217;s appeal against a court decision on releasing a person from serving a suspended sentence for evading conscription during mobilization. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the decisions of previous instances, considering that the suspension of punishment is justified by several factors &#8211; the person works at critical&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-5775","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\/5775","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=5775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}