{"id":5783,"date":"2025-02-24T09:25:38","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:25:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-522-20019-21-dated-12-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-24T09:25:38","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T07:25:38","slug":"case-no-522-20019-21-dated-12-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-522-20019-21-dated-12-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 522\/20019\/21 dated 12\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Electronic Auction and Reclamation of Non-Residential Basement Premises Sold at Forced Auction for Credit Debt.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<\/p>\n<p>1. Electronic auction took place on the basis of a valid court decision on credit debt recovery at that time.<\/p>\n<p>2. The fact that this court decision was subsequently cancelled cannot automatically lead to invalidation of the auction, as it was conducted at the moment of a legitimate court decision.<\/p>\n<p>3. The court deviated from previous practice and indicated that the grounds for declaring a transaction invalid must be established precisely at the moment of its execution.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Reject the claim for invalidation of electronic auction and reclamation of property, recovering court expenses from the plaintiff in favor of the defendants.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125296082\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Electronic Auction and Reclamation of Non-Residential Basement Premises Sold at Forced Auction for Credit Debt. Main Court Arguments: 1. Electronic auction took place on the basis of a valid court decision on credit debt recovery at that time. 2. The fact that this court decision was subsequently cancelled cannot automatically&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-5783","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\/5783","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=5783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}