{"id":7907,"date":"2025-04-06T10:08:18","date_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:08:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-440-8483-21-dated-31-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-06T10:08:18","modified_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:08:18","slug":"case-no-440-8483-21-dated-31-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-440-8483-21-dated-31-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 440\/8483\/21 dated 31\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Poltava City Council’s decision as unlawful regarding the continuation of temporary trade pavilions’ placement and cancellation of location passports.<\/p>\n

2. Key Court Arguments:
\n– The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position of the appellate court.
\n– Temporary structures actually constitute a single construction with an area of 90 sq.m, which exceeds the permitted 30 sq.m.
\n– There is no National Police approval for the placement of structures.
\n– Local authorities were obliged to correct their own mistake and not continue the placement permit.<\/p>\n

3. Court Decision: The appellate court’s resolution was cancelled, and the first instance court’s decision on partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s claim was upheld.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Poltava City Council’s decision as unlawful regarding the continuation of temporary trade pavilions’ placement and cancellation of location passports. 2. Key Court Arguments: – The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position of the appellate court. – Temporary structures actually constitute a single construction with…<\/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-7907","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\/7907","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=7907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}