{"id":7983,"date":"2025-04-07T10:27:56","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:27:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-17789-22-dated-02-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-07T10:27:56","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:27:56","slug":"case-no-160-17789-22-dated-02-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-160-17789-22-dated-02-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/17789\/22 dated 02\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of the dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to compel Vocational Technical School No. 88 to bring the civil defense protective structure into a state of readiness.<\/p>\n

2. Main arguments of the court:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court formed a fundamental legal position that:
\n– State Emergency Service bodies do not have direct legislative powers to independently file such lawsuits
\n– The prosecutor cannot replace the authority that should protect state interests
\n– Even under martial law, procedural norms must be observed<\/p>\n

The court established that the prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of protecting state interests by the relevant authorities.<\/p>\n

3. Court decision: The prosecutor’s statement of claim was left without consideration.<\/p>\n

Key conclusion: The prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject of appeal to the court instead of the authorized government body.<\/p>\n

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

Here is the translation of the legal text: Here is a brief analysis of the court decision: 1. Subject of the dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to compel Vocational Technical School No. 88 to bring the civil defense protective structure into a state of readiness. 2. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court…<\/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-7983","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\/7983","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=7983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}