{"id":5974,"date":"2025-02-27T09:36:16","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T07:36:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-15675-23-dated-20-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-27T09:36:16","modified_gmt":"2025-02-27T07:36:16","slug":"case-no-520-15675-23-dated-20-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-15675-23-dated-20-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/15675\/23 dated 20\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Order of the Prosecutor General dated 30.04.2021 No. 136 on Declaring Invalid Orders Regarding the Creation of Staffing Commissions for Prosecutor Selection.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The time limit for filing a lawsuit was correctly calculated from 20.10.2021, when the plaintiff became aware of the content of the order.<br \/>\n2. The circumstances of martial law and military actions are not an automatic basis for reinstating the procedural time limit.<br \/>\n3. The court for the first time drew attention that the conclusions of previous courts about the non-validity of reasons for missing the time limit are premature and require additional assessment.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed assessment of the circumstances of missing the time limit.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125312805\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Order of the Prosecutor General dated 30.04.2021 No. 136 on Declaring Invalid Orders Regarding the Creation of Staffing Commissions for Prosecutor Selection. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The time limit for filing a lawsuit was correctly calculated from 20.10.2021, when the plaintiff became aware of the content of the&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-5974","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\/5974","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=5974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5974\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}