{"id":7170,"date":"2025-03-23T09:07:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:07:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-308-3496-19-dated-12-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-23T09:07:11","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:07:11","slug":"case-no-308-3496-19-dated-12-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-308-3496-19-dated-12-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 308\/3496\/19 dated 12\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute: Cancellation of the bank&#8217;s state registration of property ownership for an apartment that was transferred as a mortgage under a loan agreement in foreign currency.<\/p>\n<p>Main arguments of the court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The bank did not comply with the procedure for notifying the plaintiff about the breach of obligations, which makes it impossible to apply an out-of-court method of satisfying the mortgagee&#8217;s requirements.<\/p>\n<p>2. The disputed apartment falls under the moratorium on seizure of property from Ukrainian citizens for loans in foreign currency, as it is the plaintiff&#8217;s only housing with an area less than 140 sq.m.<\/p>\n<p>3. The state registrar had no grounds for registering the bank&#8217;s ownership of the apartment due to the moratorium and non-compliance with the notification procedure.<\/p>\n<p>Court decision: Uphold the previous court decisions on cancellation of the bank&#8217;s registration of property ownership for the apartment and reject the bank&#8217;s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125933054\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of the dispute: Cancellation of the bank&#8217;s state registration of property ownership for an apartment that was transferred as a mortgage under a loan agreement in foreign currency. Main arguments of the court: 1. The bank did not comply with the procedure for notifying the plaintiff about the breach of obligations, which makes it&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-7170","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\/7170","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=7170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}