{"id":6342,"date":"2025-03-06T09:35:51","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T07:35:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-922-2993-20-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-06T09:35:51","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T07:35:51","slug":"case-no-922-2993-20-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-922-2993-20-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 922\/2993\/20 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor challenged the decision of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the privatization of non-residential premises and their purchase and sale agreements.<\/p>\n<p>Key Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. Declaring the city council&#8217;s decision invalid, which has already been executed, is not an effective method of protecting the territorial community&#8217;s rights.<br \/>\n2. The court deviated from previous practice and noted that challenging already executed administrative decisions will not restore rights.<br \/>\n3. The only appropriate method of protection is a vindicatory claim for property recovery, rather than declaring contracts invalid.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Reject the prosecutor&#8217;s claim due to the selection of an inappropriate method of rights protection, as well as due to incorrect identification of the defendant.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125495811\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor challenged the decision of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the privatization of non-residential premises and their purchase and sale agreements. Key Arguments of the Court: 1. Declaring the city council&#8217;s decision invalid, which has already been executed, is not an effective method of protecting the territorial&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-6342","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\/6342","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=6342"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6342\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}