{"id":7374,"date":"2025-03-27T10:08:13","date_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:08:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-917-2139-23-dated-20-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-27T10:08:13","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T08:08:13","slug":"case-no-917-2139-23-dated-20-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-917-2139-23-dated-20-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 917\/2139\/23 dated 20\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt and Penalty under a Foreign Economic Contract for Goods Supply between Ukrainian and Georgian Companies.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments:<br \/>\n1. The court established that there is a debt under the contract between the companies, which was partially settled by an agreement on offsetting counterclaims.<br \/>\n2. The court deviated from previous practice regarding penalty calculation in foreign currency, pointing out the need to consider the specifics of legal relations, particularly the involvement of a non-resident.<br \/>\n3. The court recognized that previous court decisions have procedural and substantive deficiencies in terms of calculating and recovering penalties.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions regarding penalty recovery and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed analysis of the circumstances of penalty accrual.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126020140\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt and Penalty under a Foreign Economic Contract for Goods Supply between Ukrainian and Georgian Companies. Main Court Arguments: 1. The court established that there is a debt under the contract between the companies, which was partially settled by an agreement on offsetting counterclaims. 2. The court deviated from previous&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-7374","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\/7374","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=7374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}