RESULTS OF CASES

Representing a client at courts of appeal, the attorney managed to considerably diminish the amount of fine imposed by Ukraine court of primary jurisdiction.

A claim was satisfied in full regarding recovery of costs unreasonably demanded by a city council for maintenance works provided to a client. 

The attorney protected client’s interests and prevented the client’s house from being arrested and the client from being evicted.

The attorney appealed an unreasonable fine imposed by court bailiffs on a client for his non-execution of a court judgement. The attorney’s claim was satisfied at the court of original jurisdiction and later upheld by the Highest Administrative Court of Ukraine.

The State Property Fund of Ukraine refused to extend a contract of lease and insisted that the client vacated the premises.

The lawyer managed to obtain a court decision under which the contract of lease of business premises was extended as it had been requested by the claimant. 

It was requested to analyze a contract of cooperation and exclusive deliveries of goods from the China suggested by the Chinese partners.

Having analyzed a contract draft, the lawyer revealed several conditions unfavourable for the client and found that a part of the contract did not meet some provisions of the competition law. As a result an improved-structure procedure and an amended version of the contract were suggested. 

State Tax Inspectorate passed a resolution imposing a tax penalty on my client for failure to account cash receipts.

Based on current law provisions and appropriate court precedents, we managed to persuade the court that the penalty-imposing resolution of State Tax Inspectorate was legally groundless. 

A territorial branch of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine passed a resolution imposing a fine on my client, a large pharmacy chain, forabuse of monopoly (dominant position).

The resolution of the Anti-Monopoly Committee was declared void in court owing to a well-developed strategy and additionally-found evidences.     

A founder of a company providing medical services prepared and tried to unlawfully take over the business. In order to conducts a corporate raid the unfair shareholder lodged a claim to a court of general jurisdiction.  

The court of primary jurisdiction satisfied the claim partly. However, an appeal prepared by the lawyer was satisfied in full by a court of appeal, the decision of court of primary jurisdiction was reversed, and a new judgement was passed to reject the claim of our rivals. The business wasdefended from the corporate raid. 

A client asked for legal aid because a bank imposed a penalty on his immovable property by having a notary issued a writ of execution, and enforcement proceedings were initiated.

The lawyer took an active part in the joint "round table" (Kiev) between the Supreme Economic Court of the Ukraine and Bar Association, which discussed the practice of disputes arising from lease relations.

The lawyer successfully defended the interests of the client: the executive inscription of the notary on recovery from the client at the expense of movable property was recognized by the court as invalid.