{"id":6330,"date":"2025-03-06T09:27:47","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T07:27:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-420-17642-22-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-06T09:27:47","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T07:27:47","slug":"case-no-420-17642-22-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-420-17642-22-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 420\/17642\/22 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Communal Enterprise’s Inaction as Unlawful Regarding Maintenance of Civil Protection Shelter in Improper Technical Condition.<\/p>\n

Main Court Arguments:
\n1. The Prosecutor does not have the right to replace the authorized state authority in implementing state supervision measures during martial law.
\n2. The State Emergency Service and the Regional Military Administration do not have the authority to file such lawsuits.
\n3. Introduction of a moratorium on inspections does not mean inaction of authorities, but is a temporary restriction due to martial law.<\/p>\n

Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s claim without consideration, canceling previous court decisions.<\/p>\n

Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding representation of state interests by the prosecutor during martial law.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Communal Enterprise’s Inaction as Unlawful Regarding Maintenance of Civil Protection Shelter in Improper Technical Condition. Main Court Arguments: 1. The Prosecutor does not have the right to replace the authorized state authority in implementing state supervision measures during martial law. 2. The State Emergency Service and the Regional Military…<\/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-6330","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\/6330","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=6330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}