{"id":7937,"date":"2025-04-06T10:19:36","date_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-740-2873-22-dated-12-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-06T10:19:36","modified_gmt":"2025-04-06T07:19:36","slug":"case-no-740-2873-22-dated-12-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-740-2873-22-dated-12-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 740\/2873\/22 dated 12\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of electronic auction for the sale of garages that are joint shared property of the spouses.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; Garages were purchased during the marriage and are joint shared property of the spouses<br \/>\n&#8211; The state executor did not clarify the circumstances regarding the ownership of the property by the debtor jointly with his wife<br \/>\n&#8211; Electronic auction was conducted without taking into account the wife&#8217;s rights as a co-owner of the property<br \/>\n&#8211; The claim to invalidate the auction is an appropriate method of protecting violated rights<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim &#8211; cancel the appellate court ruling regarding the recognition of electronic auction and refer this part of the case for a new review.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding methods of protecting co-owner&#8217;s rights during forced sale.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126289837\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: 1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of electronic auction for the sale of garages that are joint shared property of the spouses. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; Garages were purchased during the marriage and are joint shared property of the spouses &#8211; The state executor did not clarify the circumstances&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-7937","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\/7937","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=7937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7937\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}