{"id":6781,"date":"2025-03-15T09:33:56","date_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:33:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-757-18297-23-c-dated-10-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-15T09:33:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-15T07:33:56","slug":"case-no-757-18297-23-c-dated-10-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-757-18297-23-c-dated-10-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 757\/18297\/23-c dated 10\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: PrivatBank attempted to recover funds that were collected from it in favor of a client within the framework of executing a court decision on deposit funds recovery.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<br \/>\n1. The bank independently partially executed the court decision, withholding a portion of funds for tax payment, but the state executor legally collected the remaining funds.<br \/>\n2. The bank did not apply to the court for clarification of the court decision regarding taxation procedure, therefore the executive service acted within the law.<br \/>\n3. The funds were received by the claimant based on the court decision, therefore there are no grounds for their return under unjust enrichment rules.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court left PrivatBank&#8217;s cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the correctness of previous instances&#8217; decisions.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court emphasized the consistency of judicial practice regarding the execution of court decisions by tax agents.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125734378\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: PrivatBank attempted to recover funds that were collected from it in favor of a client within the framework of executing a court decision on deposit funds recovery. Main Court Arguments: 1. The bank independently partially executed the court decision, withholding a portion of funds for tax payment, but the state executor legally&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-6781","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\/6781","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=6781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}