{"id":7018,"date":"2025-03-20T09:34:55","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:34:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-619-3484-19-dated-12-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-20T09:34:55","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T07:34:55","slug":"case-no-619-3484-19-dated-12-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-619-3484-19-dated-12-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 619\/3484\/19 dated 12\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Determination of heirs’ shares in inherited property (residential house) after parents’ death.<\/p>\n

2. Main Court Arguments:
\n– The disputed property belonged to the parties’ parents as joint common ownership
\n– Plaintiff PERSON_1 actually accepted the inheritance after the father’s death but was not fully taken into account during inheritance distribution
\n– Declaring inheritance certificates completely invalid is an incorrect method of rights protection<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Amend inheritance certificates by reducing PERSON_2’s share from 1\/2 to 3\/8 and from 1\/4 to 3\/16, and recognize PERSON_1’s share as 7\/16 of the inherited property.<\/p>\n

Important: The court deviated from previous practice of completely invalidating inheritance certificates, proposing a more fair mechanism of partial certificate modification.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Determination of heirs’ shares in inherited property (residential house) after parents’ death. 2. Main Court Arguments: – The disputed property belonged to the parties’ parents as joint common ownership – Plaintiff PERSON_1 actually accepted the inheritance after the father’s death but was not…<\/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-7018","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\/7018","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=7018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}