{"id":8120,"date":"2025-04-10T10:54:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-606-2201-23-dated-02-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T10:54:49","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T07:54:49","slug":"case-no-606-2201-23-dated-02-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-606-2201-23-dated-02-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 606\/2201\/23 dated 02\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation:<\/p>\n<p>Subject of Dispute: Allocation of a Share in the Authorized Capital of a Private Enterprise in the Procedure of Marital Property Division.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n1. The authorized capital of a private enterprise can be an object of joint marital property rights and a subject of division.<br \/>\n2. Previous courts incorrectly refused to satisfy the claim, believing that a share in the authorized capital cannot be divided.<br \/>\n3. The Supreme Court referred to a Constitutional Court decision that allows considering the authorized capital as joint marital property.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the case circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviated from previous judicial practice that did not allow dividing the enterprise&#8217;s authorized capital between spouses.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126361805\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Allocation of a Share in the Authorized Capital of a Private Enterprise in the Procedure of Marital Property Division. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The authorized capital of a private enterprise can be an object of joint marital property rights and a subject of division. 2. Previous&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-8120","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\/8120","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=8120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}