{"id":6843,"date":"2025-03-16T09:35:39","date_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:35:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-953-13139-20-dated-27-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-16T09:35:39","modified_gmt":"2025-03-16T07:35:39","slug":"case-no-953-13139-20-dated-27-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-953-13139-20-dated-27-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 953\/13139\/20 dated 27\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Official Misconduct by a State Executor in the Forced Sale of Real Estate Belonging to the State Institution &#8220;Ukrvodgeo&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court improperly verified the evidence regarding the actions of the state executor PERSON_6, who prepared documents for the sale of the state institution&#8217;s property.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court noted that the appellate court did not provide clear motives for its decision and allowed contradictions in the grounds for acquitting the defendant.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Supreme Court believes that the actions of the state executor could lead to the illegal alienation of real estate from state ownership.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125736746\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Official Misconduct by a State Executor in the Forced Sale of Real Estate Belonging to the State Institution &#8220;Ukrvodgeo&#8221;. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court improperly verified the evidence regarding the actions of the state executor PERSON_6, who prepared documents for the sale of&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-6843","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\/6843","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=6843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}