{"id":7751,"date":"2025-04-03T10:20:36","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:20:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-157-1664-22-dated-27-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-03T10:20:36","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:20:36","slug":"case-no-157-1664-22-dated-27-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-157-1664-22-dated-27-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 157\/1664\/22 dated 27\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Investigating Judge&#8217;s Ruling on the Transfer of Amber for Sale in Criminal Proceedings Where No Suspicion Has Been Notified<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The Court first recognized that the current version of the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow challenging the investigating judge&#8217;s ruling on the sale of property during pre-trial investigation where no suspicion has been notified.<br \/>\n2. Such prohibition violates the constitutional right of a person to judicial protection and the right to property.<br \/>\n3. The impossibility of appeal creates a risk of unjustified termination of property rights without proper judicial control.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: To cancel the ruling of the appellate court and assign a new review in the appellate instance, effectively providing the owner with the right to challenge the transfer of property for sale.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126153460\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Investigating Judge&#8217;s Ruling on the Transfer of Amber for Sale in Criminal Proceedings Where No Suspicion Has Been Notified Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Court first recognized that the current version of the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow challenging the investigating judge&#8217;s ruling on the sale of&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-7751","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\/7751","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=7751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}