{"id":6833,"date":"2025-03-16T09:31:52","date_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-202-4416-19-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-16T09:31:52","modified_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:31:52","slug":"case-no-202-4416-19-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-202-4416-19-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 202\/4416\/19 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Investigating Judge’s Ruling Refusing to Lift Property Seizure after Criminal Proceedings Closure.<\/p>\n

The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, current criminal procedural legislation does not contain a clear prohibition on appealing investigating judge’s rulings on property seizure after the completion of pre-trial investigation; secondly, the right to appeal is a constitutional guarantee and must be ensured regardless of a direct indication in the procedural law; thirdly, the appellate court’s refusal to review such a ruling violates a person’s right to judicial protection.<\/p>\n

The court decided to cancel the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open proceedings and to refer the case for a new appellate review.<\/p>\n

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

Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Investigating Judge’s Ruling Refusing to Lift Property Seizure after Criminal Proceedings Closure. The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, current criminal procedural legislation does not contain a clear prohibition on appealing investigating judge’s rulings on property seizure after the completion of pre-trial investigation; secondly, the right to…<\/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-6833","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\/6833","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=6833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}