{"id":6168,"date":"2025-03-03T09:08:58","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:08:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-906-1312-23-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-03T09:08:58","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:08:58","slug":"case-no-906-1312-23-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-906-1312-23-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 906\/1312\/23 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt for Rent and Penalty under a Real Estate Lease Agreement between JSC &#8220;Ukrzaliznytsia&#8221; and Individual Entrepreneur Eismont V.S.<\/p>\n<p>Key Court Arguments:<br \/>\n1. The court established that lease agreement No. 589 had a long history of extension, but after legislative changes from 01.02.2020, the procedure for contract extension changed.<br \/>\n2. Previous instance courts considered that the contract terminated on 30.09.2020 due to the absence of a tenant&#8217;s application for extension in accordance with the new legislation.<br \/>\n3. The Supreme Court drew attention that courts did not clarify the legal status of the property and did not verify whether contractual relations were disputed until 31.03.2023.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions regarding the refusal to recover rent debt and refer the case for new consideration.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125461373\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt for Rent and Penalty under a Real Estate Lease Agreement between JSC &#8220;Ukrzaliznytsia&#8221; and Individual Entrepreneur Eismont V.S. Key Court Arguments: 1. The court established that lease agreement No. 589 had a long history of extension, but after legislative changes from 01.02.2020, the procedure for&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-6168","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\/6168","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=6168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6168\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}