{"id":7877,"date":"2025-04-05T10:46:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-05T07:46:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-922-1529-24-dated-27-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-05T10:46:49","modified_gmt":"2025-04-05T07:46:49","slug":"case-no-922-1529-24-dated-27-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-922-1529-24-dated-27-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 922\/1529\/24 dated 27\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of a penalty of 12,109,500 UAH for the delivery of low-quality reinforced concrete slabs PAG-14.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The plaintiff did not prove that the delivered slabs have real technical defects<br \/>\n&#8211; Certificates of conformity confirm the quality of the goods<br \/>\n&#8211; The plaintiff signed delivery notes without any remarks<br \/>\n&#8211; The State Research Institute confirmed that the use of steel cables instead of rod reinforcement is not a defect<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Reject the penalty recovery, as there is no evidence of poor product quality.<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, the court essentially deviated from a literal interpretation of the technical standard, taking into account modern production realities.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126258875\"><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: Recovery of a penalty of 12,109,500 UAH for the delivery of low-quality reinforced concrete slabs PAG-14. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The plaintiff did not prove that the delivered slabs have real technical defects &#8211; Certificates of conformity confirm the quality&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-7877","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\/7877","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=7877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}