{"id":7358,"date":"2025-03-27T10:02:32","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:02:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-13118-23-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:02:32","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:02:32","slug":"case-no-380-13118-23-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-380-13118-23-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/13118\/23 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolution of Ukrtranssafety on imposing an administrative and economic fine on the vehicle owner for the absence of documents during cargo transportation.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The vehicle owner cannot be automatically considered a carrier<br \/>\n&#8211; To determine the carrier, it is necessary to establish: whether the person is a business entity, whether a transportation contract has been concluded, whether the vehicle is used on legal grounds<br \/>\n&#8211; The Ukrtranssafety authority did not prove that the plaintiff is a motor carrier and brought him to liability solely based on registration documents<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous court decisions on canceling the Ukrtranssafety resolution and reject the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court essentially deviates from previous practice, clearly defining the criteria for establishing carrier status.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126003839\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolution of Ukrtranssafety on imposing an administrative and economic fine on the vehicle owner for the absence of documents during cargo transportation. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The vehicle owner cannot be automatically considered a carrier &#8211; To determine&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-7358","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\/7358","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=7358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}