{"id":6467,"date":"2025-03-08T09:44:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:44:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-11564-23-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-08T09:44:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-08T07:44:28","slug":"case-no-910-11564-23-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-910-11564-23-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 910\/11564\/23 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the decision of the general meeting of members of the &#8220;Pivnich&#8221; auto garage cooperative from series No. 9 regarding delegation of an authorized member.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Plaintiffs believed that the meeting was conducted with procedural violations: without proper notification and without a quorum<br \/>\n&#8211; The Supreme Court established that invalidating the decision on delegation of an authorized member would not restore the plaintiffs&#8217; rights<br \/>\n&#8211; The court concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiffs is ineffective, as it would not lead to actual restoration of their rights<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Deny the satisfaction of the claim, leave the first instance court decision unchanged.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding assessment of the effectiveness of corporate rights protection methods.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125589287\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the decision of the general meeting of members of the &#8220;Pivnich&#8221; auto garage cooperative from series No. 9 regarding delegation of an authorized member. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; Plaintiffs believed that the meeting was conducted with procedural violations: without proper notification and&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-6467","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\/6467","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=6467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6467\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}