{"id":6535,"date":"2025-03-10T09:23:43","date_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:23:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-369-10013-19-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-10T09:23:43","modified_gmt":"2025-03-10T07:23:43","slug":"case-no-369-10013-19-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-369-10013-19-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 369\/10013\/19 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Removal of Obstacles in Using Residential Premises and Settling the Former Husband into a House Belonging to His Former Wife.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. Plaintiff PERSON_1 was settled into the house on legal grounds as a family member of the owner, and therefore has the right to use the housing even after the termination of marital relations.<br \/>\n2. The fact of hindering the plaintiff&#8217;s use of housing is confirmed by police reports and a deputy&#8217;s act.<br \/>\n3. The Supreme Court revealed procedural violations in the appellate court&#8217;s decision, in particular, improper assessment of PERSON_3&#8217;s arguments regarding the violation of his rights.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court&#8217;s resolution and refer the case for a new review.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court drew attention to the need to maintain a balance of interests of all dispute participants when resolving housing issues.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125639302\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Removal of Obstacles in Using Residential Premises and Settling the Former Husband into a House Belonging to His Former Wife. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. Plaintiff PERSON_1 was settled into the house on legal grounds as a family member of the owner, and therefore has the right to use the housing&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-6535","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\/6535","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=6535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}