{"id":7777,"date":"2025-04-03T10:30:30","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-420-4712-24-dated-28-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-03T10:30:30","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:30:30","slug":"case-no-420-4712-24-dated-28-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-420-4712-24-dated-28-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 420\/4712\/24 dated 28\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the SBU Department’s inaction as unlawful regarding improper consideration of a serviceman’s application for housing monetary compensation.<\/p>\n

2. Main Court Arguments:
\n– Legislation provides servicemen with the right to receive housing or compensation for it
\n– There is a clear compensation procedure that includes a queue and review by the housing commission
\n– The respondent violated the procedure by not forwarding the application to the housing commission and not following the established procedure
\n– Queue order is a determining condition for receiving compensation<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim by obliging the SBU Department to review the plaintiff’s application through the housing commission in accordance with the established procedure.<\/p>\n

Note: The court deviates from its previous position regarding interpretation of grounds for compensation refusal, emphasizing the fundamental importance of queue order compliance.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the SBU Department’s inaction as unlawful regarding improper consideration of a serviceman’s application for housing monetary compensation. 2. Main Court Arguments: – Legislation provides servicemen with the right to receive housing or compensation for it – There is a clear compensation…<\/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-7777","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\/7777","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=7777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}