[:uk]лення Державної податкової служби України в Одеській області щодо законності дій податкового органу, який наклав штраф за несвоєчасну подачу податкової декларації.
2. **Основні аргументи суду**: Верховний Суд визначив, що податковий орган не врахував обставини, які могли вплинути на своєчасність подання декларації, зокрема, форс-мажорні обставини, пов’язані з пандемією COVID-19. Суд зазначив, що позивач надав належні докази на підтвердження своїх аргументів, що свідчить про відсутність його вини у порушенні строків.
3. **Рішення суду**: Суд задовольнив касаційну скаргу ОСОБА_1, скасував рішення попередніх судів і визнав дії ГУ ДПС неправомірними, скасувавши накладений штраф.of the prosecutor indicates a formal approach to the case, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 570/6533/23 from 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is a **cassation appeal** by the victim, PERSON_6, against the rulings of the Rivne District Court and the Rivne Appellate Court, which were allegedly not in favor of the victim.
The court, in reviewing the case, referred to the provisions of the **Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine**, specifically the articles regulating procedural issues of cassation appeals. It noted that the lower courts’ rulings did not satisfy the rights of the victim, which was grounds for annulment of those rulings and appointment of a new review in the court of first instance.
The court decided to **satisfy the cassation appeal** of the victim, annul the rulings of the previous courts, and appoint a new review of the case.
Case No. 320/25216/23 from 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the **unlawful inaction** of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv regarding the **non-payment of pension arrears** and **compensation for loss of income** to the plaintiff, PERSON_1.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court noted that the subject of the new claim is the **non-fulfillment of previous court decisions**, and that the disputed legal relations had already been reviewed, thus filing a new claim does not comply with the norms of administrative court proceedings. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the **procedure for execution of court decisions** is defined by specific norms of administrative procedural legislation, which exclude the possibility of filing a separate claim to compel the execution of a court decision.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court **left the cassation appeal without satisfaction**, confirming the ruling of the Kyiv District Administrative Court and the decision of the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court without changes.
Case No. 440/11056/23 from 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unlawfulness and annulment of the tax notification-decision regarding the payment of a debt for the unified social contribution, which was charged to the name of the plaintiff, who claims that he should not pay it since he is not engaged in legal practice.
The court, in reviewing the case, emphasized that the appellate court returned the complaint of the controlling authority due to a misinterpretation of the representative’s powers, without considering the sufficiency of the provided documents. The Supreme Court stressed that the procedures for appellate appeals must be carried out according to the principle of the rule of law and that the court cannot deny access to justice if the documents confirm the person’s authority.
The court decided to grant the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Poltava region, annul the ruling of the appellate court, and refer the case for a new review.
Case No. 297/1252/20 from 17/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court, which upheld the acquittal of PERSON_7 regarding the charge of failing to comply with a court decision.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The appellate court did not adhere to the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, did not examine all arguments of the prosecutor, and failed to adequately assess the evidence presented. The court noted that the lack of response to the prosecutor’s arguments indicates a formal approach to the case, undermining the judicial process’s integrity.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new review in the appellate court.й районної військової адміністрації та скасувати рішення судів нижчих інстанцій, оскільки позивач пропустив встановлений законодавством термін для подання позову про примусове відчуження., встановив, що відповідач не виконав своїх зобов’язань щодо своєчасного нарахування та виплати пенсії ОСОБА_1. Суд зазначив, що затримка у виплаті пенсії є порушенням законодавства, що регулює пенсійне забезпечення, та підтвердив, що позивач має право на отримання компенсації за несвоєчасну виплату.
Суд ухвалив рішення задовольнити позов ОСОБА_1, визнати дії Головного управління Пенсійного фонду України в Харківській області протиправними та зобов’язати відповідача провести нарахування та виплату компенсації за несвоєчасну виплату пенсії.ні аргументи суду**: Суд зазначив, що Державна служба геології та надр України правомірно звернулася з позовом про анулювання спеціального дозволу, оскільки Комунальне підприємство “Диканський комбінат комунальних підприємств” не виконало умов користування надрами, передбачених законодавством. Суд також вказав на те, що порушення умов користування надрами підлягають санкціям, включаючи анулювання дозволу.
3. **Рішення суду**: Верховний Суд задовольнив касаційну скаргу Державної служби геології та надр України, скасував рішення судів попередніх інстанцій та ухвалив нове рішення, яким анулював спеціальний дозвіл на користування надрами, виданий Комунальному підприємству “Диканський комбінат комунальних підприємств”.**Court Arguments**: The Court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the Municipal Enterprise “Dikanskij Municipal Enterprise” took all necessary measures to eliminate the identified violations, as confirmed by the documents provided by the respondent. The courts of previous instances also took into account that the cancellation of the special permit for subsoil use is only possible in the event of non-compliance with the conditions that led to its suspension.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, confirming the decisions of the lower courts to refuse the claim.
Case No. 320/12774/21 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The dispute arose between LLC “TTS Komplekt” and the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv Region regarding the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the tax notification-decision.
2. **Main Court Arguments**: The Court addressed the issue of the possibility of changing the subject of the claim and the grounds of the administrative claim of LLC “TTS Komplekt” due to new factual circumstances that arose after the completion of the preparatory hearing. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied procedural law norms by refusing to open appellate proceedings, which made it impossible for the claimant to defend their rights.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of LLC “TTS Komplekt”, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case back for further consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 804/1779/16 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The dispute arose between the Limited Liability Company “Trading House Plutos” and the Dnipropetrovsk Customs of the State Fiscal Service regarding the recognition as unlawful of the customs authority’s decision to adjust the customs value of goods and the refusal card for accepting the customs declaration.
2. **Main Court Arguments**: The Supreme Court agreed with the previous instances that the customs authority did not provide sufficient justification for doubts regarding the validity of the declared customs value. The Court noted that, according to **Articles 53-54 of the Customs Code of Ukraine**, the customs authority is obliged to specify the concrete reasons for doubts and clarify which documents are needed to confirm the customs value, which was not done in this case.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the correctness of the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances regarding the recognition of the customs authority’s decision as unlawful.
Case No. 204/3578/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recovery of average earnings** for the delay in payment upon the termination of the claimant from the State Enterprise “Coal Company Krasnolymanska”.
The Court, in considering the case, concluded that although the respondent did indeed delay the payment of wages, the claimant missed the three-month period for filing a lawsuit established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, as the enforcement proceedings were completed on November 23, 2022, and the claim was filed in March 2023. However, the cassation court recognized that time limits do not apply due to the extension of deadlines during the quarantine, which was not taken into account by the courts of previous instances.
The Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, annul the previous court decisions, and send the case for new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 444/1936/17 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The claim of PERSON_1 for the recovery of a debt from the heirs of PERSON_5, who has passed away, by enforcing a claim on a part of the apartment, a land plot, and a residential building that have been inherited.
2. **The Court, in considering the case**, pointed out that the creditor did not comply with the established deadlines for submitting claims to the heirs, which deprives him of the right to claim. At the same time, the courts incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which require that the heirs be notified of the debts of the deceased, which did not occur in this case.
3. **The Court decided** to annul the previous decisions and refuse to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2, PERSON_3, and PERSON_4 for the enforcement of the claim on the property.
Case No. 2-1493/2007 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The case concerns the recognition of ownership rights to illegally constructed trading pavilions that were erected on a land plot leased by PERSON_1.
2. **Main Court Arguments**: The appellate court, annulling the decision of the first instance court, stated that the claimant addressed the wrong defendant since the land plot on which the construction was carried out is municipal property of the city of Kryvyi Rih, and therefore, the proper defendant should have been the Kryvyi Rih City Council. Additionally, the appellate court established that the decision of the first instance did not take into account the rights and interests of the city council, as it was not involved in the case.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, confirming the legality and reasonableness of the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court dated December 5, 2023.
Case No. 132/586/21 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the Kalynivka City Council regarding the granting of land plots in ownership to PERSON_1 as unlawful, which, according to PERSON_2, violate her rights as a land user.
The Court, in making its decision, noted that the claimant failed to prove the fact of violation of her rights to the land plot since the decisions contested by her were made before the conclusion of the sale-purchase agreement for the house, and also did not provide appropriate evidence confirming her rights or encroachments on them by the respondents. The Court also noted that the decisions of the council do not contradict the legislation and reasonably referred to circumstances that corresponded to the materials of the case.
The Court decided to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_2 unsatisfied and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 755/8135/22 dated 16/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **claim of PERSON_1** regarding the recognition of the orders of the Private Joint Stock Company “System Capital Management” as unlawful, reinstatement at work, and recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absenteeism.
The Court, in considering the application of LLC “SCM” for the reimbursement of legal assistance costs, noted that according to the law, expenses for legal assistance must be justified and real, as well as proportionate to the complexity of the case. The Court also indicated that the request of PERSON_1 to reduce the respondent’s expenses is not based on appropriate evidence, and the amount of expenses to be recovered must correspond to the principle of proportionality and reality.
The Court decided to partially satisfy the application of LLC “SCM” and recover from PERSON_1 in favor of the company legal assistance expenses in the amount of **5,000 UAH**.
Case No. 922/3838/21 dated 09/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: This case concerns the lawsuit of the Head of the Shevchenkivskyi District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv City against the Kharkiv City Council and other defendants regarding the recognition of the decision on the privatization of municipal property as unlawful, the recognition of the purchase and sale agreement as invalid, and the recovery of this property for the benefit of the territorial community.
2. **Main Court Arguments**: The Court, in making its decision, focused on the presence of conditions for privatization that were not met, and also noted that the prosecutor approached the court in a timely manner, without missing the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the prosecutor has the right to represent the interests of the state in disputes over municipal property, and that the claim for the recovery of property is an effective means of protection.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, annulling the previous decisions, and recovered the disputed property for the benefit of the territorial community of Kharkiv City.
Case No. 27/55(914/536/23) dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The case concerns the recovery of a debt in the amount of 1,750,000.08 UAH, arising from a lease agreement between the Joint Ukrainian-German Enterprise “Tristalko” and the Private Enterprise “Roma”.
2. **Main Court Arguments**: The Court, confirming the legality of the claim, emphasized that there were legal relations between the parties based on the concluded lease agreement, under which the respondent did not fulfill its obligations regarding timely payment of rent for 2019. The Court also indicated that there is no evidence in favor of the respondent to refute the facts of the debt.
3. **Court Decision**: The Court left the cassation appeal of the Private Enterprise “Roma” unsatisfied.недійсний, оскільки умови договору не відповідали вимогам законодавства України. Суд також врахував, що передача нерухомого майна була здійснена без дотримання необхідних процедур та без згоди всіх сторін, що робить угоду недійсною.
3. **Рішення суду**: Суд задовольнив позов ТОВ “Львівська фабрика скла, кераміки та скульптури” про скасування державної реєстрації обтяження на нерухоме майно та зобов’язав ТОВ “Компанія з управління проектами Акрополь” передати це майно позивачу. Суд також підтвердив, що всі дії, вчинені на виконання недійсного договору, не мають юридичної сили.ії пенсії. Суд підкреслив, що заявник не довів, що застосування цих обмежень є незаконним або порушує його права. Суд також зазначив, що відповідно до законодавства, органи соціального забезпечення мають право визначати порядок та розміри пенсійної індексації.
3. **Рішення суду**: Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу без задоволення, підтвердивши законність та обґрунтованість рішень судів нижчих інстанцій щодо дій Головного управління Пенсійного фонду України в Полтавській області.**Subject of the dispute**: The matter concerns the recognition of the invalidity of the inheritance rights certificate issued in the name of PERSON_2, as well as the claim of PERSON_1 to recognize ownership rights to a share of the inherited property after the death of their mother.
**The court, in making its decision, considered** that PERSON_1, being a minor at the time of the mother’s death, automatically accepted the inheritance in accordance with civil law norms, and that PERSON_2, by failing to inform the notary about the existence of a minor heir, violated the inheritance rights of PERSON_1. Thus, the appellate court concluded that the inheritance rights certificate issued in the name of PERSON_2 is invalid.
**The court ruled** to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_2 ungranted and confirmed the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court, which partially satisfied the claim of PERSON_1.Товариства з обмеженою відповідальністю «РІВНЯНКА» про визнання протиправними дій Товариства щодо ненадання доступу до інформації про фінансові звіти.
**Основні аргументи суду**: Суд зазначив, що Товариство зобов’язане відповідно до закону надавати доступ до фінансових звітів акціонерам. Однак, Товариство обґрунтувало відмову в наданні даних, посилаючись на те, що позивачі не є акціонерами, а отже, не мають права на отримання такої інформації. Суд підкреслив, що право на доступ до інформації є основоположним правом, і навіть у разі відсутності акціонерного статусу, позивачі можуть мати законні інтереси, які повинні бути враховані.
**Рішення суду**: Суд задовольнив позов ОСОБА_1 та ОСОБА_2, визнав дії Товариства протиправними та зобов’язав його надати доступ до фінансових звітів.PJSC “Interpipe” on the recognition of purchase and sale agreements (mandatory buyout) of securities as concluded.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court concluded that the ruling of the court of first instance dated 06.05.2024, which concerned the approval of a forensic examination and the involvement of an expert, is a ruling on the appointment of a forensic examination that is subject to appellate review. The court noted that the appellate instance erroneously returned the appeal without consideration, as it contains procedural aspects that are relevant to the case.
**Court Decision**: The court granted the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, annulled the ruling of the Central Appellate Economic Court dated 21.06.2024, and remanded the case back to this court for further consideration.
Case No. 910/3398/23 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is **the recognition of the contract as invalid** between the Limited Liability Company “DEBTOR “LUCAS AUDIT” and the individual entrepreneur Andriy Tryfonovych Kachyk.
The court, when making its decision, relied on the fact that the previous courts made errors in assessing the evidence and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, which affected the outcome of the case. The court also emphasized the necessity of a re-examination of the case for a more detailed verification of all circumstances that are significant for making a reasoned decision.
As a result, the court **partially satisfied the cassation appeal**, annulled the previous decisions, and transferred the case for a new hearing to the Economic Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 916/4208/23 dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is **the recognition of the land lease agreement as renewed** between LLC “Hanber” and the Odesa City Council, as well as the recognition of the additional agreement concluded to this contract.
The court, considering the case, was guided by the fact that **LLC “Hanber” timely notified the Odesa City Council of its intention to renew the lease agreement**, and the city council did not provide evidence of improper fulfillment of the lease agreement conditions, which, in turn, confirms the automatic renewal of this agreement on the same terms. The court also recognized that in the absence of objections from the lessor within a month from the receipt of the renewal notification, the agreement is deemed renewed.
The court decided to leave the **cassation appeal of the Odesa City Council without satisfaction**, and the previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 620/3698/18 dated 24/10/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the **cancellation of tax notification-decisions** of the State Fiscal Service regarding the Limited Liability Company “Nosivske Grain Receiving Enterprise”.
2. The court, analyzing the case, concluded that the **plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence** to confirm its expenses and the existence of services that the controlling authority considered to be marketing. The courts of the first and appellate instances recognized that **payment of taxes and fines** are not recognized expenses in accounting terms and concluded that the Company is obliged to pay property tax.
3. The Supreme Court decided to **partially satisfy the cassation appeal**, annul the decisions of the previous courts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claims, and remand the case for a new hearing.
Case No. 160/3200/20 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decisions of the Dnipro City Council regarding land tax rates and land rent payments, adopted in 2019-2020, as unlawful and invalid.
The court, considering this case, was guided by the fact that the decisions of local self-government bodies on the establishment of local taxes and fees are normative legal acts that do not fall under the regulatory policy provided by the Law of Ukraine “On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Sphere of Economic Activity”. Moreover, the court pointed out that the plaintiff (LLC “FAMILY-4”) failed to prove the fact of violation of its rights since the contested decisions did not relate to the land plot owned by the plaintiff.
The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “FAMILY-4” without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Third Appellate Administrative Court dated June 20, 2023 – unchanged.
Case No. 200/38/23 dated 24/10/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge of the order of the head of the military unit regarding the dismissal of INDIVIDUAL_2 from service, as well as the demand for reinstatement in the position and the recovery of monetary allowance for the time of forced absenteeism.
2. The court, considering the case, noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit, in particular, did not confirm her claims about objective obstacles, and also had the opportunity to file a lawsuit in another way. The court also stated that from the moment of dismissal, the plaintiff should have known about the violation of her rights and did not take the necessary actions to protect them.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, confirming the legality of the rulings of the previous courts regarding the dismissal of the claim without consideration.
Case No. 120/394/23 dated 24/10/2024
1. **The subject of the dispute** is the legality of the orders of the State Service of Maritime and Inland Water Transport and Shipping of Ukraine regarding disciplinary penalties, in particular, the dismissal of the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 for absenteeism without valid reasons.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court stated that the plaintiff was not unlawfully deprived of the right to work, since the introduction of remote work is not considered a change in essential working conditions and that the dismissal was justified by the presence of systematic absenteeism without valid reasons, which were confirmed by appropriate acts. The court concluded that the disciplinary penalties were imposed in accordance with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service”.
3. **Court Decision**: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, annulled the dismissal order, and reinstated him in his position, while the claims for recognizing another order as unlawful were left unsatisfied.
Case No. 463/8232/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 for the recognition of lease agreements as invalid, the removal of obstacles to the use of common property, and the compensation for material damages and moral harm related to the use of his share in a residential building without consent.
2. The court, when making its decision, was guided by the fact that INDIVIDUAL_1 is the lawful owner of a share in the residential building and has the right to unobstructed use of his property, as the defendants did not provide proper evidence confirming the legality of their actions. The appellate court confirmed that INDIVIDUAL_2 is creating obstacles in the use of the property, as a result of which INDIVIDUAL_1 has the right to remove these obstacles.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_2 without satisfaction and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, confirming INDIVIDUAL_1’s right to access the common residence.1. **Subject of the dispute**: INDIVIDUAL_1 appealed to the court with a claim to declare invalid the loan and mortgage agreements with JSC “Pravex-Bank” due to unfair terms that led to a significant imbalance of rights and obligations.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, examining the case, noted that the plaintiff had familiarized herself with and agreed to all terms of the contracts, and also failed to provide sufficient evidence of a violation of her rights as a consumer. The courts indicated that changes in the exchange rate are not grounds for declaring the contract invalid, as the borrower had the opportunity to foresee the respective risks.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed INDIVIDUAL_1’s cassation complaint, leaving the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged.
Case No. 149/1049/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **property rights to the joint property of the spouses**, specifically the **residential house and land plot**, as well as **compensation for vehicles** that one of the spouses sold without the knowledge of the other.
The court, examining the case, proceeded from the fact that **property acquired during marriage** is common joint ownership, and therefore each spouse has the right to an equal share. Additionally, the appellate court noted that INDIVIDUAL_2’s evidence regarding the value of the disputed vehicles was proper and admissible, while INDIVIDUAL_1’s evidence was contradictory.
The court decided to leave the **cassation complaint without satisfaction**, confirming the appellate court’s decision to recognize the joint property and to award compensation.
Case No. 904/9559/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the invalidation of the decisions of the extraordinary general meeting of the Limited Liability Company “Central Department Store,” which were convened by one of the participating companies without proper notification of the other participants.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court ruled that the third party, GRIF CORPORATION LLP, fulfilled its obligations to send a request to the Company to convene an extraordinary meeting, and since the Company did not respond to this request, the third party had the right to convene the meeting independently. The court also noted that the documents confirming the sending of the request were properly executed, and that the Company did not provide evidence supporting a refusal to convene the meeting.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint of FOLIONA MANAGEMENT LIMITED, confirming the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 922/3614/21 dated 09/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The subject of the dispute is the challenge to the decisions of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the granting of permits for the development of land management documentation and the leasing of a land plot, as well as the demand for the return of this plot to communal property.
2. **The court, examining the case**, noted that the dispute has a private law nature, as it concerns property relations, and therefore should be considered in economic court proceedings. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the prosecutor has the right to protect the interests of the state if the local self-government body improperly performs its functions, and in this case, the procedures for granting land plots were violated.
3. **The court ruled** to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, cancel the decision of the Eastern Appellate Economic Court, and send the case for further consideration to the appellate instance.
Case No. 585/1291/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 against INDIVIDUAL_2 for the release of a self-occupied land plot, on which, according to the plaintiff, a bathhouse was built without the necessary permits.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court denied the claim, stating that the plaintiff did not prove that her rights as the owner of part of the apartment were violated, and also noted the absence of technical feasibility for carrying out the reconstruction of the real estate in accordance with the regulations. The court emphasized that INDIVIDUAL_1 had not yet acquired ownership rights to the land plot, and therefore there were no grounds for the demand for release.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation complaint, and the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 757/25889/21-c dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recovery of penalties** under the purchase and sale agreement of property rights for an apartment between INDIVIDUAL_1 and LLC “Arkada-Budivnytstvo.”
The court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the **defendant did not fulfill its obligations** under the contract, did not put the object into operation within the specified time, and also noted that the outbreak of military actions only relieves liability from the moment they begin, which confirms the plaintiff’s right to recover penalties for the period prior to this.
The court decided on a **partial satisfaction of the claim**, ordering LLC “Arkada-Budivnytstvo” to pay INDIVIDUAL_1 a penalty amounting to 658,170.08 UAH for the period from May 1, 2020, to February 23, 2022, while denying the satisfaction of the defendant’s counterclaim.
Case No. 824/57/24 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cancellation of the decision of the Permanent Arbitration Court** at the Association of Ukrainian Banks regarding the collection of debt in favor of JSC “VTB Bank.”
The court ruled that **the application of INDIVIDUAL_1 to cancel the decision was submitted significantly late**, eleven years after the arbitration court’s decision was made. The court also noted that INDIVIDUAL_1 did not provide justified reasons for missing the deadline for appeal and considered that they should have taken measures to inquire about the status of the case, as the court correspondence was sent to an address known to them.
The court decided to leave the **appeal complaint without satisfaction** and confirmed the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated June 11, 2024, which returned INDIVIDUAL_1’s application for the cancellation of the arbitration court’s decision.
Case No. 812/572/18 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the challenge by the “Krynichne” Farm Enterprise of the tax notification-decision of the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service in the Luhansk region, which defined the tax liability at over 2.4 million UAH.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, satisfying the claim, justified its decision on the grounds that the tax notification was received based on an inspection report conducted on the basis of an order that was recognized by the court of the previous instance as unlawful. The courts established that the inspection did not comply with legislative requirements, and therefore, the inspection report cannot be considered admissible evidence.
3. **Court decision**: The court dismissed the cassation complaint of the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service and confirmed the legality of the decisions of the previous instances regarding the cancellation of the tax notification.
Case No. 815/980/18 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The plaintiff, on behalf of his minor children, challenged the decision of the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service in the Odesa region regarding the payment of real estate tax, considering it unlawful.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, analyzing the claim, established that according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, taxpayers of real estate tax are individuals, including minors, and that parents are responsible for fulfilling their children’s tax obligations until they obtain civil capacity. The court also noted that non-residential buildings are considered taxable objects, as they do not fall under the exemption for industrial enterprises.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower instances, denying the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 360/454/23 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The plaintiff, Senior Sergeant INDIVIDUAL_1, challenges the inaction of military unit NUMBER_1 regarding the incomplete accrual and payment of the additional reward provided by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168 dated February 28, 2022, for the period of his participation in hostilities.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court confirmed that for the payment of the additional reward in the increased amount of 100,000 UAH, documentary confirmation of the serviceman’s direct participation in hostilities is required. The court pointed out the impracticality of rejecting the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and noted that the previous courts misjudged the significance of the available documents that testify to the plaintiff’s participation in hostilities.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied INDIVIDUAL_1’s cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the appellate court, and amended the decision of the first instance court, confirming the legitimacy of the partial satisfaction of the claim for the payment of the additional reward for the period from October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022.
Case No. 480/9911/23 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – **collection of tax debt** between the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Sumy Region and the Limited Liability Company “Agrofirm “Berehynia-Agro”.
In making its decision, the court relied on the fact that the **appeal was filed by a representative who had legal authority for self-representation** on behalf of the legal entity, as he confirmed his rights with a document from the Unified State Register. The Supreme Court also noted that the lower court did not properly examine the submitted documents, which led to an erroneous conclusion about the return of the appeal.
Court ruling – **the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Sumy Region was granted, the ruling of the Second Appellate Administrative Court was revoked, and the case was sent for continued consideration.**
**Case No. 903/511/24 dated 22/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the recognition of the illegality of the auction and the annulment of the auction results for the sale of the entire property complex of the State Enterprise “Volynvuhillia”.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court confirmed the existence of a threat to transfer the disputed property without the participation of the claimant, indicating that the failure to take measures to secure the claim could complicate or make impossible the execution of the court’s decision. The court’s position was reinforced by the fact that if the Limited Liability Company “City Auto” obtained ownership of the property, it would have the ability to dispose of it at its discretion, which could threaten the rights of the claimant.
**Court ruling:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Volyn Region, revoked the previous decisions, and denied the request of the State Enterprise “Volynvuhillia” for securing the claim.
**Case No. 8/219-05 dated 23/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute** is the cassation appeal of the Private Enterprise “Sonechko-2017” against the ruling of the Northwestern Appellate Economic Court, which refused to open appellate proceedings regarding its appeal against the decision of the Economic Court of Vinnytsia Region on the recognition of ownership rights.
2. **Main arguments** upon which the court based its decision are that the appellant did not provide sufficient substantiated grounds for the renewal of the term for filing an appellate complaint and did not prove the existence of valid reasons that hindered timely access to the court. The court also emphasized that the missed deadline for appeal was a result of the appellant’s inaction and that he did not attempt to take all possible actions to exercise his procedural rights.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PE “Sonechko-2017” without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Northwestern Appellate Economic Court dated 01.07.2024 remained unchanged.
**Case No. 918/18/24 dated 15/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the invalidation of additional agreements to the contract for the supply of electricity and the recovery of overpaid funds from the energy supply company in favor of the Rivne Regional Council.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The courts of first and appellate instances established that the additional agreements concluded between the Municipal Enterprise “Regional Center for Emergency Medical Assistance and Disaster Medicine” and the LLC “Rivne Regional Energy Supply Company” contradict the norms of the Civil and Economic Codes of Ukraine, as well as the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement,” since they led to an unjustified increase in the price of electricity by more than 70% from the initial price. Accordingly, the courts declared these agreements invalid and ordered the respondent to return the unlawfully obtained funds.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Rivne Regional Energy Supply Company” without satisfaction and confirmed the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recognition of the additional agreements as invalid.
**Case No. 910/2581/24 dated 22/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the application of the Limited Liability Company “OTP Leasing” for an additional ruling regarding the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court, examining the application, drew attention to the provisions of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine that govern the reimbursement of court costs, including expenses for professional legal assistance. Evaluating the submitted evidence, the panel of judges concluded that the legal assistance costs in the amount of 6000.00 UAH were justified and proportional to the subject of the dispute, and accordingly partially satisfied the application for the recovery of expenses, denying in other respects.
**Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application of LLC “OTP Leasing” and recovered from LLC “Metakon” 6000.00 UAH for professional legal assistance expenses, denying in other respects of the application.
**Case No. 756/3957/21 dated 23/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns **the establishment of a share in joint ownership** and **the division of inheritance property** after the death of PERSON_8.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court, examining the case, emphasized that all participants are heirs of the first line, confirming their right to inheritance. However, the courts of first and appellate instances did not take into account all the claims of PERSON_1, particularly regarding the ownership rights to a share of the apartment at ADDRESS_2, and also did not investigate circumstances affecting the correct distribution of the inheritance. The cassation court pointed out the need for a new consideration of the case.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, revoked the decisions of the lower courts, and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 752/11660/14-c dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute arose between PERSON_1 and the state executor regarding the legality of actions related to the execution of the executive letter for eviction from the apartment.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court established that the actions of the state executor, who returned the executive letter due to the absence of certain debtor data, were unlawful, as the executor has the right to independently obtain the necessary information for the execution of the court decision. The appellate court also noted that the absence of the specified data is not grounds for returning the executive document without execution.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction and confirmed the ruling of the appellate court, which recognized the actions of the state executor as unlawful.
**Case No. 571/916/22 dated 23/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the establishment of the fact of cohabitation between PERSON_1 and her deceased brother, which has legal significance for obtaining compensation in connection with the death of the serviceman.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The appellate court annulled the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the dispute between PERSON_1 and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is public law and is not subject to consideration within the framework of civil proceedings, referring to legal conclusions of the Supreme Court on similar cases. The court also noted that the applicant did not prove that the claim pertains solely to civil relations without a dispute over rights.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case to the appellate court for continued consideration.
**Case No. 753/10230/20 dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the division of property of the spouses after the divorce between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court relied on the presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, according to Article 60 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which provides for equal shares in joint property, unless otherwise specified in a marriage contract. The court also noted that the burden of proof regarding the personal nature of the property lies with the party asserting that certain property is their personal property.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Darnytsia District Court regarding the recognition of joint property and the distribution of ownership rights between the parties, as well as the ruling of the appellate court, confirming the equality of shares in the joint property of the spouses.
**Case No. 910/7027/22 dated 22/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute arose between the State Enterprise “GENERATOR” and LLC “ANTESCO” regarding the obligation of the respondent to perform warranty repairs of the climate chamber, which, according to the plaintiff, has malfunctioned.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court established that the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the contract and that the malfunction of the chamber occurred due to the plaintiff’s violation of the operating rules, rather than due to manufacturing defects.ки вона не є документом, що підтверджує наявність форс-мажорних обставин. Верховний Суд також підкреслив, що за відсутності належних доказів про форс-мажорні обставини сторони повинні виконати умови договору.
**Рішення суду:** Верховний Суд задовольнив касаційну скаргу позивача, скасував рішення судів попередніх інстанцій і направив справу на новий розгляд до суду першої інстанції для усунення виявлених юридичних помилок.**Subject of the dispute:** The claim of the Deputy Head of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office against the Agricultural Fishing Society to remove obstacles to the use of the Sholokhivske Reservoir and return it to the state, based on violations of restrictions in the territory of the nature reserve fund.
**Main arguments of the court:** When making its decision, the court concluded that the prosecutor did not prove the existence of industrial fishing by the defendant in the territory of the disputed reservoir, as confirmed by the act of the State Environmental Inspection, as well as the absence of evidence supporting such activity. The court also noted that the land plot of the reservoir was not registered, complicating the determination of the legitimacy of the use of the water facility.
**Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.The prosecutor confirmed the legality and reasonableness of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 280/712/23 dated 21/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** This case concerns the appeal of tax notification-decisions by which the State Tax Service reduced the amounts of budget reimbursement for value-added tax and imposed penalties on the Private Joint-Stock Company “Dniprostal”.
**Main arguments of the court:** The courts of first and appellate instances concluded that the tax notification-decisions made based on the inspection were unfounded and unproven, as the claimant provided appropriate primary documents confirming the reality of the business transactions. The court emphasized the necessity for the controlling authority to prove the absence of business transactions, rather than to refute the evidence provided by the claimant.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instances, and sent the case for reconsideration to the court of first instance, indicating the need for a more detailed analysis of the factual circumstances and documents.
Case No. 910/14543/23 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the legality of the decision of the state registrar regarding the state registration of changes to the leasehold rights of a land plot, specifically the cancellation of the decision to register the leasehold rights of the Private Enterprise “Voyage”.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The appellate court noted that the lease agreement for the land plot between the Kyiv City Council and PE “Voyage” was not properly renewed, as no additional agreement, which is necessary for the continuation of the contract, was concluded. The absence of such an agreement renders the decision of the state registrar regarding the registration of changes to the leasehold rights unlawful, indicating the illegal acquisition of leasehold rights by PE “Voyage”.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of PE “Voyage,” overturning the decision of the state registrar regarding the registration of changes to the leasehold rights, while leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged in other aspects.
Case No. 910/4918/21 dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **creditor’s claims of the Limited Liability Company “Legal Company “Delta”** against the Limited Liability Company “Manufacturing and Commercial Firm “Investgroup” in a bankruptcy case, specifically a claim for the amount of **294,294 UAH**.
The court, in making its decision, referenced the **absence of proper and admissible evidence** confirming the validity of the debtor’s debt to LLC “Legal Company “Delta,” noting that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law, as the creditor failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims. An important aspect was that the creditor is obliged to independently prove the existence of its monetary claims and their justification.
The court decided to leave the **cassation appeal unsatisfied**, while the appealed ruling of the appellate court and the decision of the court of first instance remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/3287/24 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the invalidation of the contract for construction and its supplementary agreements concluded between the Housing and Communal Services Department and LLC “BC “Vivat Group,” as well as the recovery of the amount of 745,450.30 UAH.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor’s claims were not properly substantiated, as they did not meet the requirements for the payment of court fees. The courts of first and appellate instances noted that the prosecutor did not rectify the deficiencies indicated in the ruling on leaving the claim without movement, and did not pay the required court fee in full, which is grounds for returning the claim.
**Court decision:** The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was left unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.[:]
