{"id":7214,"date":"2025-03-23T09:29:28","date_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:29:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-367-6134-19-dated-05-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-23T09:29:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-23T07:29:28","slug":"case-no-367-6134-19-dated-05-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-367-6134-19-dated-05-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 367\/6134\/19 dated 05\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Brief Analysis of the Court Decision:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of purchase and sale agreements for a residential house and land plot in terms of the buyer and recovery of property.<\/p>\n<p>2. Key Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court pointed out the fundamental impossibility of invalidating the contract &#8220;in terms of the buyer&#8221;. The courts of previous instances incorrectly applied substantive law, since:<br \/>\n&#8211; The Civil Code does not allow such a legal construction<br \/>\n&#8211; The method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is ineffective<br \/>\n&#8211; Simultaneous modification of the subject and grounds of the claim is not permitted<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new hearing.<\/p>\n<p>Key Thesis: The court must find an effective method of protecting the violated right that corresponds to the essence of the legal violation and does not contradict the law.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125933065\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Brief Analysis of the Court Decision: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of purchase and sale agreements for a residential house and land plot in terms of the buyer and recovery of property. 2. Key Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court pointed out the fundamental impossibility of invalidating the contract &#8220;in terms of the buyer&#8221;.&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-7214","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\/7214","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=7214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}