{"id":7094,"date":"2025-03-21T09:32:45","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:32:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-570-566-22-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T09:32:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:32:45","slug":"case-no-570-566-22-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-570-566-22-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 570\/566\/22 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Analysis of the Court Decision:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Partial invalidation of inheritance certificates and recognition of ownership rights to a part of a residential house and an unauthorized extension.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The plaintiff claimed that the notary unjustifiably included her share of the house and unauthorized extension in the inheritance estate<br \/>\n&#8211; The court established that an inheritance certificate is not a legal transaction, and therefore the rules on the invalidity of legal transactions cannot be applied to it<br \/>\n&#8211; The plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, as she was aware of the certificate&#8217;s issuance as early as 2013<br \/>\n&#8211; Cancellation of state registration of ownership is not a basis for restoring the statute of limitations<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Reject the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.<\/p>\n<p>Important: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of the moment of commencement of the statute of limitations in inheritance cases.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125876150\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Analysis of the Court Decision: 1. Subject of Dispute: Partial invalidation of inheritance certificates and recognition of ownership rights to a part of a residential house and an unauthorized extension. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The plaintiff claimed that the notary unjustifiably included her share of the house and unauthorized extension in the&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-7094","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\/7094","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=7094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}