{"id":6453,"date":"2025-03-08T09:39:21","date_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:39:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-8686-21-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-08T09:39:21","modified_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:39:21","slug":"case-no-466-8686-21-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-466-8686-21-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 466\/8686\/21 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of JSC “Lvivgaz” regarding additional gas charges due to the detection of an unauthorized gas pipeline in the consumer’s house.<\/p>\n

2. Main Court Arguments:
\n– The court deviated from previous practice and established that the mere fact of an unauthorized gas pipeline’s existence is sufficient for qualification, without mandatory proof of meter reading distortion.
\n– Employees of JSC “Lvivgaz” discovered a pipe inserted into the gas pipeline, which is not accounted for by the meter.
\n– The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the absence of violation and did not refute the violation report.<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution, which satisfies JSC “Lvivgaz” requirements for recovering 211,187.80 UAH for additionally charged gas.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of JSC “Lvivgaz” regarding additional gas charges due to the detection of an unauthorized gas pipeline in the consumer’s house. 2. Main Court Arguments: – The court deviated from previous practice and established that the mere fact of an unauthorized…<\/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-6453","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\/6453","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=6453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6453\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}