{"id":6719,"date":"2025-03-14T09:28:10","date_gmt":"2025-03-14T07:28:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-916-302-24-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-14T09:28:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-14T07:28:10","slug":"case-no-916-302-24-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-916-302-24-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 916\/302\/24 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the analysis of the court decision:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: The bank’s right to challenge the ruling on closing proceedings in a natural person’s insolvency case.<\/p>\n

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
\n– The court confirmed the bank’s right to challenge the judicial decision, as the debtor previously indicated the bank among its creditors
\n– The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of first instance prematurely closed the proceedings without performing necessary procedural actions
\n– The court established that the bank has the right to file its claims, even if it did not manage to do so in a timely manner<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the resolution of the appellate court – unchanged.<\/p>\n

Important: The court essentially deviated from previous practice regarding limiting creditors’ right to appeal in insolvency cases.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the analysis of the court decision: 1. Subject of Dispute: The bank’s right to challenge the ruling on closing proceedings in a natural person’s insolvency case. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: – The court confirmed the bank’s right to challenge the judicial decision, as the debtor previously indicated the bank among its…<\/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-6719","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\/6719","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=6719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}