{"id":6376,"date":"2025-03-07T09:23:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-07T07:23:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-5663-22-910-7708-17-dated-07-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-07T09:23:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T07:23:39","slug":"case-no-910-5663-22-910-7708-17-dated-07-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-5663-22-910-7708-17-dated-07-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 910\/5663\/22 (910\/7708\/17) dated 07\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal text analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of the share purchase agreement for PJSC “Ukrtelekom” due to the buyer’s failure to fulfill investment obligations.<\/p>\n

2. Key Arguments of the Court:
\n– The court established that although LLC “ESU” did not formally make direct investments, it ensured investment through PJSC “Ukrtelekom” amounting to over 800 million dollars
\n– Investments were actually directed towards the enterprise’s development, which became profitable after privatization
\n– Breach of contract is not substantial, as the state did not suffer actual damages<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Reject the termination of the share purchase agreement.<\/p>\n

: The court clearly determined that not every formal violation of the privatization contract can be grounds for its termination.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation of the legal text analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of the share purchase agreement for PJSC “Ukrtelekom” due to the buyer’s failure to fulfill investment obligations. 2. Key Arguments of the Court: – The court established that although LLC “ESU” did not formally make direct investments, it ensured investment through…<\/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-6376","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\/6376","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=6376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}