{"id":6763,"date":"2025-03-15T09:24:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:24:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-460-9136-23-dated-10-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-15T09:24:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:24:39","slug":"case-no-460-9136-23-dated-10-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-460-9136-23-dated-10-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 460\/9136\/23 dated 10\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the refusal of the Urban Planning and Architecture Department to extend the temporary structure placement passport for entrepreneurial activity.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Court Arguments:<br \/>\n&#8211; The temporary structure placement passport is not a permit-type document, therefore the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution #314 on automatic document extension during martial law does not apply to it.<br \/>\n&#8211; The placement passport&#8217;s validity period had already expired at the time of the plaintiff&#8217;s appeal (11.10.2022), therefore the respondent lawfully refused extension.<br \/>\n&#8211; Previous instance courts incorrectly qualified the placement passport as a permit document.<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Previous instance decisions were cancelled and the individual entrepreneur&#8217;s claim for passport extension was denied.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice regarding the interpretation of the concept of &#8220;permit-type document&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125710496\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the refusal of the Urban Planning and Architecture Department to extend the temporary structure placement passport for entrepreneurial activity. 2. Main Court Arguments: &#8211; The temporary structure placement passport is not a permit-type document, therefore the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution #314 on automatic document extension during&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-6763","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\/6763","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=6763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}