{"id":6198,"date":"2025-03-03T09:25:56","date_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:25:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-15622-23-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-03T09:25:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-03T07:25:56","slug":"case-no-380-15622-23-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-15622-23-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/15622\/23 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decisions of the Political Party &#8220;Civic Position&#8221; on Recalling a Deputy of the Ivano-Frankivsk United Territorial Community.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The decision of the local party organization&#8217;s conference on proposing the recall of a deputy is an internal organizational matter and cannot be challenged in an administrative court.<br \/>\n2. The decision of the party&#8217;s highest governing body on recalling a deputy affects the composition of the local self-government body and therefore can be challenged in an administrative procedure.<br \/>\n3. The court verifies compliance with the procedure for making the recall decision but does not interfere with the discretionary powers of the party leadership.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the decisions of lower courts regarding the protocol of the Party Coordination Council, and refer the case for a new review.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125483415\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decisions of the Political Party &#8220;Civic Position&#8221; on Recalling a Deputy of the Ivano-Frankivsk United Territorial Community. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The decision of the local party organization&#8217;s conference on proposing the recall of a deputy is an internal organizational matter and cannot be challenged in an administrative&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-6198","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\/6198","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=6198"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6198\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}