Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 31/10/2024

**Case No. 943/207/24 dated 23/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the **appeal of the verdict of the Busk District Court and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal** regarding the criminal offense committed by INDIVIDUAL_7, as well as the civil claim against the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine.

The court, partially satisfying the cassation appeal, noted that the **resolution of the civil claim requires a new hearing**, as previous decisions may not have taken into account all necessary legal aspects related to the civil claim. The court also stated that it leaves unchanged other parts of the decisions of lower instances, as it found no grounds for their cancellation.

The court decided to **overturn the verdict of the Busk District Court and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal regarding the resolution of the civil claim** and appoint a new hearing in the court of first instance.

**Case No. 915/1268/23 dated 18/09/2024**
**Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the lawsuit of the Mykolaiv City Council against the Small Private Enterprise “Darvy” regarding the obligation to remove obstacles in the use of the land plot and the annulment of the state registration of ownership rights to an unfinished construction object.

**Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, indicated that the courts of previous instances did not adequately investigate the facts of unauthorized construction, and it was not taken into account that the state registration of ownership rights to the disputed object was conducted after the expiration of the lease agreement. The court emphasized that the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, as there were lease relations in this case.

**Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled previous court decisions, and referred the case for a new hearing in the court of first instance.

**Case No. 905/1571/23 dated 22/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute**: The court examines the dispute between the Private Joint Stock Company “Ukrenergo” and the Limited Liability Company “DTEK Kurakhivska Thermal Power Plant” regarding the collection of debt for balancing electric energy.

**Main arguments of the court**: The court, making its decision, was guided by the fact that both parties failed to fulfill their obligations under the participation agreement in the balancing market, and that the existence of a special calculation algorithm does not exempt them from the obligation to fulfill contractual obligations. The court also emphasized that Ukrenergo did not prove that its non-payment was due to its fault, as the terms of the agreement do not contain stipulations regarding the use of only special accounts for payment.

**Court decision**: The court left the cassation appeal of Ukrenergo unsatisfied, and the decisions of previous instances unchanged, confirming that both counterparties must fulfill their obligations under the agreement.

**Case No. 752/17778/23 dated 15/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal concerning the convicted INDIVIDUAL_7.

The court, considering the case, was guided by arguments that the decisions of lower instances regarding the imposition of penalty contained unlawful elements, specifically that the circumstances of the case influencing the determination of the penalty measure were not duly taken into account. As a result, the court decided to change the penalty to restriction of liberty for a term of one year, excluding previous decisions regarding other types of penalties.

The court ruled to satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecution and partially the appeal of the defender, changing the previous decisions regarding the punishment of INDIVIDUAL_7.

**Case No. 193/1362/19 dated 22/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the **appeal against the verdict of the Dzerzhynsk District Court** of Kryvyi Rih and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings concerning the convicted INDIVIDUAL_6 on charges of **murder**, as stipulated in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In making the decision, the court was guided by arguments regarding the **change of punishment** of the convicted, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the personality of the accused, including the fact that INDIVIDUAL_6 had no prior convictions. The court also considered circumstances that may indicate the possibility of mitigating the punishment, as the verdict regarding the assigned punishment seemed excessively harsh.

The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal and **change the punishment**, mitigating it to **12 years of imprisonment**.

**Case No. 904/833/23 dated 15/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the issue of **recovery of legal costs** for professional legal assistance in the case between **Collective Enterprise “Mагдалинівський маслозавод”** (plaintiff) and **Joint Stock Company “Operator of the Gas Distribution System “Dnipro gas”** (defendant).

The court, considering the application for the distribution of legal costs, focused on compliance with procedural norms, in particular, Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which requires timely submission of evidence of incurred costs. The court also took into account that the costs must be justified and proportionate to the volume of work performed by the lawyer, and that they are not mandatory for the fulfillment of obligations arising between the lawyer and the client.

The court decided to **partially satisfy the plaintiff’s application**, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff **20,000 hryvnias** for professional legal assistance in the cassation instance.

**Case No. 910/13682/20 dated 15/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A dispute arose between the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the Kyiv City Council and LLC “KPS-GROUP” regarding the return of a land plot of 16.7952 hectares located on Promyslova Street in Kyiv.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The appellate court indicated that the prosecutor did not prove the legality of interference in the peaceful possession of the property of “KPS-GROUP”, noting that there was no evidence of unauthorized construction on the disputed land plot. The court also argued that the land plot was provided for a specific intended purpose, and there were no grounds for canceling previous decisions, as it was not proven that the rights of the plaintiff were violated.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Northern Appellate Economic Court, which denied the prosecutor’s claim for the return of the land plot.

**Case No. 907/1034/21 dated 09/10/2024**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawsuit of the Zakarpattia Regional Prosecutor’s Office for the annulment of the decision of the Kholmkiv Village Council regarding the approval of the land management project and the recognition of the lease agreement for the land concluded between the village council and the ZBK “Kvadrat” as invalid.

2. The court, considering the case, was guided by arguments that the prosecutor, representing the interests of the state, filed a lawsuit due to the lack of authority of the State Geocadastre to independently file relevant claims. The court found that the decision of the village council was made with violations of legislation; however, it did not take into account that the prosecutor did not follow the proper procedure for representing the interests of the state, thus the claim should be left without consideration.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of ZBK “Kvadrat”, annulled previous court decisions, and left the prosecutor’s claim without consideration.

**Case No. 910/6224/23 dated 23/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of 123,000 hryvnias, incurred by the Limited Liability Company “Industrial Park “Myrotske” in connection with the consideration of the case against the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer”.

**Main arguments of the court:** The court, in making the decision, was guided by the norms of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of reimbursement of legal costs to the party in favor of which the decision was made.1. The court also noted that the claimed expenses must be justified, necessary, and proportionate to the subject of the dispute. In this regard, the court drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff was unable to adequately justify the significant excess of the claimed expenses compared to the previously indicated amounts.

**Court Ruling:** The Supreme Court partially granted the application, awarding UAH 62,000 in expenses for professional legal assistance from the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “IP Myrotske,” and denied the satisfaction of the remaining claims.

Case No. 752/6393/22 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeal** of the defender against the verdict of the Holosiivskyi District Court and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal concerning the criminal charge against PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court, considering the case, was guided by the **insufficiency of evidence** in the previous judicial instances and **violations of procedural norms** that could have affected the objectivity and legality of the decisions made. The court established that a **new trial** is necessary for a more detailed analysis of the circumstances.

The court decided to **satisfy the cassation appeal** and annul the previous decisions, appointing a new trial in the court of first instance.

Case No. 761/13344/20 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which changed the punishment for the commission of crimes under Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court of cassation instance, having reviewed the case materials, noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of criminal law, as it did not take into account all the circumstances of the case and the personality of the convicted. The Supreme Court agreed that the punishment appointed by the appellate court was excessively severe, considering the information about PERSON_6, his actions to compensate for damages, and the presence of mitigating circumstances.

3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of PERSON_6, reducing the imposed sentence to 2 years of imprisonment, leaving other parts of the appellate court ruling unchanged.

Case No. 304/1323/20 dated 22/10/2024
1. **The subject of the dispute** is the cassation appeal against the verdict of the Uzhhorod City District Court, which convicted citizen PERSON_6 for the rape of a minor.

2. **Main arguments of the court** in rendering the decision were that the court of cassation instance confirmed the correctness of applying the norms of substantive and procedural law, and also stated that the evidence presented in the case sufficiently confirms the guilt of PERSON_6 in committing the crime. The court also noted that both previous courts examined all the evidence and provided an appropriate assessment of the testimonies of the victim and witnesses.

3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the Uzhhorod City District Court and the ruling of the Transcarpathian Court of Appeal, denying the satisfaction of the defender’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 910/9619/23 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the claim of the Joint Stock Company “Gas Distribution System Operator ‘Dniprogas'” against the Limited Liability Company “YE Energy” for the collection of a debt amounting to UAH 8,076,934.59, which includes penalties, 3% annual interest, inflation losses, and fines.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court, considering the case, established that the defendant improperly fulfilled its obligations under the natural gas sales contract, specifically by failing to timely return the advance payment. At the same time, the courts of previous instances did not consider the defendant’s arguments regarding force majeure to be justified and did not provide an appropriate assessment of the request to reduce penalties and fines, indicating a violation of procedural law norms.

3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court, and remitted the case for a new trial.

Case No. 910/3992/23 dated 12/09/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **legality of the actions of the Joint Stock Company ‘Ukrainian Railways’** regarding the prohibition of the operation of freight cars of the Limited Liability Company “Flybridge” after the expiration of the limit of their operation.

In rendering the decision, the court relied on the fact that the **provisions of the Procedure, approved by Order No. 647,** apply to all freight cars, regardless of the technical solutions issued prior to its entry into force, as the safety of the operation of the cars is paramount. The court also noted that the actions of the Company contradict state regulation aimed at ensuring the safety of railway transport.

The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of “Ukrainian Railways,” annulling the decisions of the previous courts and denying the satisfaction of the claim of the “Flybridge” Company.

Case No. 917/1443/23 dated 16/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cancellation of the decision of the state registrar, the decision of the local government authority** and the **recognition of the lease agreement for the land plot as invalid.**

The court, considering the case, was guided by the **ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection**, since the annulment of the disputed decisions would not restore the violated rights of the plaintiff, as their execution has already occurred. The appellate court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide evidence confirming the existence of obstacles to accessing his property, indicating the absence of justified claims.

The Supreme Court ruled to leave the **cassation appeal of LLC “Banner LMN” without satisfaction**, and the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.

Case No. 910/2301/24 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Gas Supply Company ‘Naftogaz Trading'” for the collection of UAH 752,634.00 from PERSON_1 due to improper performance of her official duties, which led to overpayments to employees.

The court, considering this case, emphasized that the dispute should be resolved within the framework of commercial court proceedings, as it concerned the actions of an official of the company, rather than labor relations, as confirmed by the norms of procedural legislation. The appellate court indicated that compensation for damages could be sought by both the owner(s) of the company and the company itself, reflecting corporate governance relationships.

The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, confirming that the case is subject to consideration in commercial court proceedings.

Case No. 924/1202/23 dated 15/10/2024
1. **The subject of the dispute** is the collection from the Housing and Utility Department of the city of Khmelnytskyi for the debt for consumed electric energy, as well as penalties, inflation losses, and 3% annual interest, totaling UAH 3,354,881.72.

2. **Main arguments of the court** in rendering the decision were that the defendant consumed electric energy beyond the financial limits, leading to the unjust enrichment of the plaintiff without proper legal grounds. The appellate court considered that the fact of excessive consumption is confirmed by evidence, and according to Articles 1212 and 1213 of the Civil Code, the defendant is obliged to reimburse the cost of consumed electric energy.

3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the appellate court regarding the collection of penalties, leaving the decision on the collection of the debt for consumed electric energy, inflation losses, and 3% annual interest unchanged.

Case No. 911/578/24 dated 24/10/2024
1. **The subject of the dispute is** the collection of a debt amounting to UAH 653,268,845.55 between LLC “Gas Supply Company ‘Naftogaz Trading'” and the Private Joint Stock Company “Bila Tserkva Thermal Power Plant.”

2. **Main arguments guiding the court in rendering the decision** were that the plaintiff did not rectify the deficiencies of the lawsuit, specifically, did not provide evidence of sending copies of the lawsuit to the defendant, and that the absence of a registered electronic cabinet for the defendant does not exempt the plaintiff from the obligation to send documents. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms, noting that this ensures equality among all participants in the proceedings.

3. **The court made the decision to** satisfy the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, annul the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast and the decision of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court, and remand the case to the Commercial Court of Kyiv Oblast for further consideration.did not fully assess the evidence presented regarding the services rendered and the corresponding debt. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation of the contractual obligations and the actual delivery of services, considering the financial implications involved.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer”, canceled the previous decisions of the lower courts, and returned the case for a new examination to the Economic Court of Poltava Region.риття кримінального провадження стосовно ОСОБА_6 у зв’язку з відсутністю складу злочину, оскільки дії, за які він був засуджений, не відповідають новим критеріям злочинності, встановленим чинним законодавством.ість зобов’язань у Товариства “Уманьгаз Збут” підтверджує законні підстави для стягнення заборгованості. Суд також зазначив, що дії приватного виконавця були в межах його повноважень і відповідали нормам процесуального законодавства.

В результаті, Верховний Суд залишив без змін рішення попередніх інстанцій, підтвердивши правомірність дій приватного виконавця щодо виконання ухвали про затвердження мирової угоди.The grounds for compulsory enforcement have been verified and confirmed. The court emphasized that the concluded settlement agreement is an enforceable document, and the bailiff has the right to initiate enforcement proceedings based on the court’s ruling, which includes all necessary requisites.

The court upheld the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the first instance, denying the cassation appeal of the “Umanhgas Zbut” Company regarding the actions of the private bailiff.

Case No. 916/1017/24 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute** in this case is the claims of the **Housing Exploitation Department of the City of Kherson** against the **Executive Committee of the Novokakhovka City Council** for the **termination of the lease agreement** for real estate, concluded on September 1, 2021.

2. The main arguments that guided the court in making its decision were that the **plaintiff failed to ensure the appearance of their representative** at the court hearings and did not provide valid reasons for their absence. The court indicated that the plaintiff was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing but ignored the summons twice, which served as the basis for leaving the claim without consideration in accordance with the norms of the **Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine**.

3. **The court’s decision** holds that the cassation appeal of the **Housing Exploitation Department of the City of Kherson** is denied, and the decisions of the previous courts remain unchanged.

Case No. 917/531/19 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the unlawful orders of the head of the Lokhvitsky District State Administration, the lease agreement for land plots, and the return of these land plots to the state in the interests of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Poltava region.

2. **The main arguments of the court** were that the prosecutor did not prove that the disputed land plots do not belong to undivided land shares and that they are state-owned lands. The court also noted that the contested orders are acts of a non-normative nature, which cannot be annulled without confirming the violation of the state’s rights regarding these lands.

3. **The court’s decision** was to deny the prosecutor’s claims, leaving the previous court decisions unchanged.

Case No. 912/1952/23 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose between the Private Agricultural Enterprise “VIRA” and the Mariyanivka Village Council regarding the recognition of the concluded additional agreement for the renewal of the land lease agreement.

2. **The main arguments of the court**: The first instance and appellate courts, satisfying the plaintiff’s claims, found that the PE “VIRA” complied with all legal norms regarding notifying the Mariyanivka Village Council of the intention to renew the lease agreement, and continued to use the land plot after the lease term expired, while the village council did not provide any objections to the renewal. The court also noted that new legislative changes that came into effect after the contract expired do not apply to this case, as the contract was concluded earlier.

3. **The court’s decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower instances, satisfying the claim of PE “VIRA” regarding the recognition of the concluded additional agreement for the renewal of the land lease agreement.

Case No. 922/211/24 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose between the Limited Liability Company “Typhoon-2000” and the Joint Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” regarding the recognition as unlawful and the annulment of the decision of the commission on reviewing the acts of violations of the Rules of the Retail Electricity Market.

2. **The main arguments of the court**: The court stated that the defendant did not provide proper and admissible evidence of the consumer’s interference with the operation of measuring devices, and also revealed numerous gross violations in the compilation of the violation act, which indicates its invalidity according to legislative requirements. The court emphasized that the violation act does not comply with the established form and contains ambiguities that prevent proper qualification of the violation.

3. **The court’s decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Joint Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” unsatisfied, and the decision of the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv Region and the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court remain unchanged.

Case No. 910/10198/23 dated 16/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the recovery of 1,359,560.78 UAH, which was paid as an advance for the execution of a contract between the Limited Liability Company “Danik Group” and the Limited Liability Company “Deco Lux”.

2. **The main arguments of the court**: The court relied on the fact that the plaintiff lawfully refused the contract, citing part four of Article 849 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which allows for refusal without justification of reasons. The court also emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence of the work performed or the return of the paid advance, indicating the plaintiff’s claims were justified.

3. **The court’s decision**: The court denied the cassation appeal of LLC “Deco Lux”, confirming the decisions of the previous instances regarding the recovery of 1,359,560.78 UAH and 28,000 UAH in legal costs.

Case No. 922/5064/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is the **recognition of the lease agreement for the land plot as invalid** and the **return of this land plot** to the territorial community.

The court, having examined the case, relied on the **failure to comply with the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine** regarding the conduct of land auctions when leasing the disputed land plot. The appellate court noted that the lease agreement was concluded without following the procedure, which constitutes a violation of the law. It was also considered that the prosecutor had the right to represent the interests of the state in court due to the inaction of the local village council.

The court decided to **satisfy the prosecutor’s claim**, recognizing the lease agreement as invalid and obligating LLC “Dekart Plus” to return the disputed land plot.

Case No. 910/14451/22 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose between INDIVIDUAL_1 and the All-Ukrainian Public Organization “Boxing Federation of Ukraine” regarding the recognition of the unlawful and annulment of the decision of the state registrar concerning the changes made to the information in the Unified State Register, particularly regarding the change of the organization’s leadership.

2. **The main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, in examining the case, concluded that the Registrar is not the proper defendant in this dispute, as INDIVIDUAL_1 should have filed a claim against the VGO “FBU”, which is a party in the disputed legal relations. The court noted that the registration action was carried out based on decisions that were declared invalid, and therefore all actions of the Registrar did not contain signs of illegality.

3. **The court’s decision**: The court satisfied the cassation appeal of the VGO “FBU”, annulled the decisions of the lower instances, and adopted a new decision denying the claims of INDIVIDUAL_1.

Case No. 923/1188/21 dated 21/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the **substitution of parties in the enforcement proceeding** in the case concerning the recovery of **54,718.40 UAH** of unemployment benefits from the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Kherson Region to the Kherson Regional Employment Center.

In making its decision, the court relied on **substantial violations of procedural law** by the appellate court, in particular, the incorrect assessment of the fact of debtor substitution and the extension of the deadlines for remedying the deficiencies of the cassation appeal, which constitutes a **violation of legislative norms**. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the **deadlines for remedying deficiencies** cannot be extended beyond the legally established term.

The court decided to **partially satisfy the cassation appeal**, annul the resolution of the appellate court, and send the case for a new hearing to the Southwestern Appellate Commercial Court.**Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the obligation of the defendant to fulfill the terms of a contract regarding the supply of a drone aviation complex and the imposition of penalties for improper performance of obligations.

The court, analyzing the case, relied on **evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances** that complicated the execution of the contract; however, it found that the defendant failed to comply with the notification requirements regarding these circumstances, which deprived them of the right to exemption from liability. It was also significant that the penalties imposed by the plaintiff were found to be excessive and could lead to negative consequences for the manufacturing enterprise.

The court ruled to **overturn the decision of the appellate court** and uphold the decision of the first instance court, which reduced the amount of penalties imposed.**Dispute Subject:** The case concerns the recalculation of charges for electricity distribution services for the Main Department of the National Police in the Kharkiv Region, taking into account the circumstances of temporary occupation and destruction of the consumption facility.

2. **Main Court Arguments:** The court established the facts that the Main Department of the National Police did not use the administrative building due to occupation and destruction, which made it impossible to consume electricity during the disputed period; the courts of first and appellate instances made their decisions based on the available evidence regarding actual consumption, confirming the absence of an obligation to pay for electricity for the specified periods.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo,” confirming the decisions of the lower courts regarding the obligation to recalculate the electricity charges and to draft clarifying Acts.

Case No. 904/4459/23 dated 22/10/2024
**Dispute Subject:** This case concerns the invalidation of the share transfer agreement in the charter capital of the Company, concluded between PERSON_2 and PERSON_3, which the plaintiff PERSON_1 considers fraudulent.

**Main Court Arguments:** The court refused to satisfy the claim, as it considered that PERSON_2 was not an entrepreneur and the disputed agreement was concluded before the decision on debt recovery was made. The appellate court noted that although there are signs of fraud, this is not supported by sufficient circumstances to declare the agreement invalid.

**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower instances and closed the proceedings in the case, determining that the dispute should be examined in accordance with civil procedure, rather than economic.

Case No. 910/72/24 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **debt recovery** amounting to **1,362,234,468.50 UAH** between the Limited Liability Company “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” and the Joint Stock Company “National Joint Stock Company Naftogaz of Ukraine.”

The court, while considering the case, relied on arguments regarding the **insufficiency of grounds for changing the amount of penalty charges** and **inflation losses**, acknowledging that the decisions of the previous instances were justified, and also took into account the procedural norms governing the cassation appeal process.

The court issued a decision that **closed the cassation proceedings** regarding Naftogaz’s appeal against the decision of the Kyiv Economic Court, while the cassation appeal of the Gas Transmission System Operator was left **unsatisfied**.

Case No. 912/1189/23 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **debt recovery** amounting to **3,383,465.25 UAH** between the Limited Liability Company “Gas Supply Company Naftogaz of Ukraine” and the Housing Maintenance Department of Kropyvnytskyi.

In its decision, the court, guided by the principles of economic procedural law, noted that the decision of the Central Appellate Economic Court was made in violation of substantive and procedural law norms, and therefore should be annulled. The court considered the details of the case and the conclusions of previous instances that indicate the legitimacy of the defendant’s claims.

As a result, the court satisfied the cassation appeal and annulled the decision of the appellate court, leaving the decision of the Economic Court of Kirovohrad Region in force.

Case No. 910/13952/23 dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **debt recovery** in the amount of 260,864,340.67 UAH from the Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” for bonds issued by the State Enterprise “Donetsk Railway.”

In making its decision, the court relied on arguments regarding the **expiration of the statute of limitations**, noting that claims for the repayment of debt on bonds of series G, J, and N should have been filed no later than 2019 and 2020, respectively. The defendant pointed out that, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff’s claims could not be satisfied since the legal relationship between the parties had transformed into a natural obligation.

The court decided to **close the cassation proceedings** regarding certain claims and to leave unchanged the decisions of the previous instances that denied the recovery of the debt.

Case No. 914/2694/23 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a clause in a goods procurement contract and the recovery of unduly paid funds, including VAT, from the private enterprise “City Line” due to violations of tax legislation.

The court ruled that the expenses amounting to 93,916.67 UAH, paid for VAT, were unduly charged, as under the law during martial law a zero VAT rate should be applied. As a result, the court held that the defendant is obliged to return these funds and also considered that the refusal to recover 3% annual interest and inflation losses is unlawful, as the obligation to return the funds arose from the moment of their undue receipt.

The court issued a decision satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, annulling previous decisions regarding the refusal to recover 3% annual interest and inflation losses, obliging “City Line” to return the corresponding sums.

Case No. 918/2/24 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a land sale agreement concluded between the Volodymyrets Village Council and the individual entrepreneur Dizhurchuk Anatoliy Valeriyovych, as well as the return of this land plot to communal ownership.

The court, in examining this case, took into account that the Volodymyrets Village Council concluded the land sale agreement without conducting land auctions, which violates Articles 134 and 135 of the Land Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the land plot was free from construction, and the real estate object (incomplete construction) did not grant the right to acquire the land plot without competitive conditions.

The court decided to annul previous judicial acts and return the case for a new consideration, indicating the need for a comprehensive examination of all circumstances of the case.

Case No. 904/6386/23 dated 15/10/2024
**Recovery of a penalty for improper performance of the terms of a sales contract** and a counterclaim for debt recovery from LLC “AV Trading” against JSC “Ukrnafta.”

In rendering its decision, the court **was guided by the facts of improper performance of obligations** by LLC “AV Trading,” in particular, violations of delivery timelines, which served as the grounds for imposing a penalty. The court also stated that it **refused to satisfy the counterclaim** due to the fact that Ukrnafta had no obligation to pay for the goods until their complete delivery.

The court issued a decision **leaving unchanged the previous decisions of the courts regarding the partial satisfaction of Ukrnafta’s claim and the refusal of the counterclaim of LLC “AV Trading.”**

Case No. 372/341/21 dated 17/10/2024
1. **Dispute Subject:** The case concerns the criminal charges against PERSON_6 for causing a traffic accident that resulted in the death of several individuals, as well as the cassation appeal of the defense against the court’s verdict on sentencing.

2. **Main Court Arguments:** In making its decision, the court relied on evidence confirming that PERSON_6 violated traffic rules, particularly being under the influence of narcotics, which led to severe consequences. The court also noted that the accused did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the conclusions of the experts and failed to prove the absence of a causal link between his actions and the consequences of the traffic accident.

3. **Court Decision:** The court dismissed the defense’s cassation appeal and upheld the verdict of the Obukhiv District Court sentencing PERSON_6 to 9 years of imprisonment.**Civil Code of Ukraine.**

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new hearing to the Economic Court of Kyiv, noting violations of substantive and procedural law.

Case No. 916/3409/22 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Department of Municipal Property of the Odessa City Council for the eviction of the Public Organization “Disabled People of Hope for the Future” from a non-residential premises and the recovery of penalties for the delay in returning property.

In making its decision, the court was guided by the fact that, firstly, the Department failed to notify the tenant about the expiration of the lease agreement; however, this does not release the tenant from the obligation to return the property. Secondly, the court established that the Respondent did not prove their good faith behavior and did not provide evidence regarding the impossibility of returning the premises.

The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Public Organization “Disabled People of Hope for the Future” and upheld the decision of the appellate court regarding the partial recovery of penalties.

Case No. 910/3902/24 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case involves the lawsuit of the Public Organization “Vostok Society” against the Odessa Regional State Administration and the Private Enterprise “Pivdenparkservice” for the recovery of 16,550,000 UAH in damages.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: In making its decision, the court noted that the representative of the plaintiff did not appear at two court hearings and did not provide reasons for their absence, which is grounds for leaving the claim without consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the plaintiff was duly notified of the time and place of the hearings but did not take any procedural actions, such as a motion to consider the case in their absence.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Public Organization “Vostok Society,” confirming the decisions of the lower courts to leave the claim without consideration.

Case No. 910/5368/24 dated 24/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose between the Limited Liability Company “Center for City Construction” and the Limited Liability Company “Arkadstroy” regarding the recovery of the amount of 4,612,251.60 UAH.

**Main arguments of the court**: The court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the ruling on the refusal to make corrections is not subject to appellate review separately from the court’s decision, as the procedural legislation provides a limited list of rulings that may be appealed. According to part one of Article 255 of the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine, the possibility of appeal is only provided for rulings related to decisions, not for the rulings themselves.

**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Arkadstroy” and left the ruling of the Northern Appellate Economic Court dated 14.08.2024 unchanged.

Case No. 918/920/23 dated 16/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The claim of the State Specialized Economic Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine” for the recognition of the illegality of the order of the Rivne District State Administration regarding the lease of land and for the recognition of the relevant decisions of state registrars as invalid.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the disputed land plot belongs to the category of forestry or nature reserve lands; the courts of previous instances noted that the land plot is located outside the village of Knyazivka and found no objective grounds for recognizing the order and contract as invalid. Thus, it was established that the disputed plot, according to land legislation, is considered a water fund land plot.

3. **Court Decision**: The cassation appeal was left without satisfaction, and the rulings of the appellate and first instance courts were left unchanged, confirming the legality and validity of the previous decisions.

Case No. 910/14228/21 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is **the recognition of certificates as invalid** and the obligation to perform certain actions between KAESER KOMPRESSOREN SE, “SIGMAENGINEERING” company, and a state organization.

The court, when making its decision, emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the case, as the issue at hand is significant for confirming the legality of the actions of the parties, as well as considering all circumstances of the case that may not have been fully investigated in previous instances. The Supreme Court also highlighted that lower courts may require additional evidence or clarifications.

The court decided to **partially satisfy the cassation appeal** of the “SIGMAENGINEERING” company, annul the ruling of the appellate court, and remand the case for a new hearing.

Case No. 922/1822/20 dated 09/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The court is examining a case regarding the recovery of a debt under a loan agreement.

**Main arguments of the court**: The court based its decision on civil law norms, in particular, the plaintiff’s right to recover the debt, supported by documents confirming the conclusion of the loan agreement and the existence of the debtor’s obligations. The court also noted that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the plaintiff’s claims.

**Court Decision**: The court satisfied the claims, ordering the defendant to repay the debt in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement.

Case No. 925/557/21 dated 15/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose between the Deputy Head of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor’s Office, acting in the interests of the state, and the “Dnipro-2003” Service Cooperative regarding the removal of obstacles to the use of premises and land by their release.

**Main arguments of the court**: The courts of previous instances justified their decisions by stating that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of legal grounds for the eviction of the recreation houses, as the defendant did not violate the rights of the plaintiffs. Additionally, the courts noted that the relations between the parties are governed by the terms of a contract that has expired, but no clear legal consequences for the eviction of the disputed property were established.

**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to satisfy the claims for the eviction of the recreation houses, and remanded the case for a new hearing to the Economic Court of the Cherkasy Region.

Case No. 921/504/20 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the decision of the Ternopil City Council to lease a land plot to the “Wind” Service Cooperative as invalid.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, in examining the case, emphasized that leasing a land plot located within the coastal protective strip without considering legislative restrictions is illegal. The court noted that the disputed land plot is subject to a special usage regime, and its lease without compliance with the requirements of the Land Code contradicts the interests of the state and the territorial community.

3. **Court Decision**: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, annulled the ruling of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the city council’s decision as unlawful, while upholding the first instance court’s decision to deny the claim.

Case No. 622/1153/19 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute in this case concerns the legality of orders of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Kharkiv Region regarding the lease of land plots to INDIVIDUAL_1, as well as the recognition of the corresponding lease agreements as invalid.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, in examining this case, found that the disputed orders were issued in violation of the norms of the Land Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Farming,” as the provision of land plots occurred without holding the necessary land auctions, and also considering that the prosecutor missed the deadlines for filing a claim. The appellate court supported the conclusions of the local court that such circumstances do not provide grounds for satisfying the claim.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts which denied the claim for the recognition of the lease agreements for the land plots as invalid.

Case No. 621/2310/20 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is **the prosecutor’s motion** to transfer the materials of the criminal proceedings from one court to another regarding the accused INDIVIDUAL_6.

The court took into account…1. The **redirecting** of materials to another court is necessary to ensure a fair examination of the case, particularly considering the location of the accused and the situation in the court from which the case is being transferred. The court also simplified the procedure by deciding to grant the request, as it complies with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation.

The court decided to **grant the prosecutor’s request** and transfer the case materials to the Zmiyiv District Court of Kharkiv Oblast for further consideration.

Case No. 642/3791/21 dated 21/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeal** of the defender against the verdict of the Poltava Court of Appeal, which convicted INDIVIDUAL_8 of committing a **criminal offense** under part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In making its decision, the court was guided by the principles of **legality** and **justification**, relying on the factual circumstances of the case, as well as on the fact that the previous courts lawfully established the guilt of the convicted and the fairness of the imposed punishment. The court concluded that the cassation appeal did not contain sufficient grounds for amending or overturning the appellate decision.

The court ruled to leave the **cassation appeal** unsatisfied and the verdict of the Poltava Court of Appeal unchanged.

Case No. 727/9167/17 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defender against the verdict of the Zastavniv District Court and the ruling of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal, by which the minor INDIVIDUAL_7 was convicted of committing criminal offenses related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic substances.

In making its decision, the court was guided by the arguments that the appellate court did not conduct a proper analysis of the defender’s arguments concerning the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during covert investigative actions, as well as the violation of the minor’s rights during the detention. The cassation court established that these violations had a significant impact on the legality and justification of the appellate court’s ruling.

The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, annul the ruling of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal, and appoint a new hearing in the appellate court.

Case No. 991/8552/24 dated 22/10/2024
1. The **subject of the dispute** is the application of sanctions against INDIVIDUAL_1 as stipulated in paragraph 1-1 of part 1 of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” for the purpose of confiscating assets for the benefit of the state.

2. The **main arguments of the court** were that INDIVIDUAL_1, who supports the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, falls under sanctions, as her actions include calls for aggression and justification of the aggressor’s actions. The court also established that at the time of the plaintiff’s appeal to the court, legal norms allowing the application of sanctions under martial law were in force.

3. **The court ruled** to satisfy the claim of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, apply sanctions against INDIVIDUAL_1, and confiscate the specified assets for the benefit of the state.

Case No. 190/867/22 dated 25/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute arose between INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2 regarding the recognition of the loan agreement and the pledge agreement as sham transactions, followed by the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the null transaction.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The first instance court and the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed transactions aimed at concluding a sales contract, as a loan agreement was actually concluded. The Supreme Court confirmed that the existence of an agreement to sell a land plot does not refute the validity of the concluded loan agreement, as the decision is based on substantiated facts and relevant legal norms.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

Case No. 296/2819/21 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns INDIVIDUAL_1’s claims for compensation for moral damages caused by the unlawful actions of the Main Directorate of the State Geocadastre in the Zhytomyr Region.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** In making its decision, the court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the infliction of moral suffering and did not prove the causal link between the inaction of the defendant and the occurrence of negative consequences. The court also indicated that the decision of the Zhytomyr District Administrative Court had already restored the violated rights of INDIVIDUAL_1.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal dated December 7, 2021, unchanged.

Case No. 463/7418/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns a lawsuit by INDIVIDUAL_1 against the state of Ukraine, specifically against the State Treasury Service and the Territorial Directorate of the State Bureau of Investigations in Lviv, for compensation for moral damages caused by the inaction of state authorities.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** In considering the case, the court noted that to recover moral damages, it is necessary to establish a causal link between the actions of the responsible authorities and the damage caused, as well as to prove the fact of damage. However, the plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence regarding the damage and the causal link between the actions of the Territorial Directorate of the State Bureau of Investigations and the inflicted suffering, which was the basis for denying the claim.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

Case No. 642/5079/21 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the petition of INDIVIDUAL_5 for the transfer of the materials of the proceedings regarding the appellate complaint against the ruling of the investigating judge from one appellate court to another.

In making its decision, the court was guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Articles 32, 34, and part 2 of Article 376, which regulate the procedure for considering appellate complaints and transferring case materials. Considering that the drafting of the full text of the ruling required significant time, the court deemed it appropriate to limit itself to only the operative part of the ruling.

The court decided to leave the petition of INDIVIDUAL_5 unsatisfied.

Case No. 752/3602/20 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the transfer of ownership of an apartment from INDIVIDUAL_1 to the Joint Stock Company “Sens Bank” through state registration, which the plaintiff contests as illegal.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The first instance court established that the absence of a separate agreement to satisfy the claims of the mortgagee is grounds for recognizing the actions of the state registrar as illegal, as the proper procedure regarding the sending of requests to eliminate violations by the mortgagee was not followed. The appellate court partially amended the decision, emphasizing that according to the mortgage agreement, there is a possibility of enforcing the mortgage, but did not support this with sufficient evidence of compliance with all necessary conditions.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal by amending the contested decisions by excluding references to the violation of the procedure for sending requests to eliminate violations while leaving the other parts of the decisions unchanged.

Case No. 443/74/24 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is a **criminal proceeding** against INDIVIDUAL_7 accused of committing an offense under part 2 of Article 240 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court was guided by arguments concerning the **insufficiency of evidence** for the application of special confiscation of material evidence, specifically the mini-tractor and the homemade trailer, considering that their confiscation is unjustified as the connection of these items with the committed offense has not been proven.

The court ruled on the **partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal**, annulling the decision on the confiscation of the specified material evidence and returning them to INDIVIDUAL_7.

Case No. 310/2210/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute arose in connection with the appeal against the actions of the senior state executor regarding the establishment of temporary restrictions on the right to operate vehicles and use firearms based on alimony arrears.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court noted that according to part nine of Article 71 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” the state executor has the right to impose restrictions in the presence of alimony arrears exceeding the amount of payments for four months. The appellate court also emphasized that the applicant did not provide evidence that would confirm the illegality of the executor’s actions and did not substantiate the circumstances that could indicate the absence of arrears through no fault of his own.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.**Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the division of property acquired during marriage and the recognition of it as joint ownership, as well as rights to certain real estate and movable property.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court noted that the property in question was acquired during the marriage and thus should be considered joint property. It emphasized the need to fairly distribute the assets based on contributions made by each spouse during the marriage. The court also took into account the interests of both parties and the principle of equality in property rights.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the recognition of the property as joint ownership and ordering the equitable distribution of the assets between the parties.**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court, when considering the case, proceeded from the presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage and noted that no evidence was provided to refute this presumption. Furthermore, the court took into account that INDIVIDUAL_2 was unable to provide adequate evidence to confirm that the disputed property was acquired solely with her personal funds, which allowed the recognition of property rights as joint communal ownership.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_2, leaving the ruling of the appellate court dated August 16, 2023, unchanged.

Case No. 201/11949/23 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **accusation** of INDIVIDUAL_6 of committing a criminal offense as stipulated in Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the verification of the legality of the sentence of the Dnipro Appellate Court.

The court, examining the case materials, relied on the available evidence, the parties’ positions, and legal norms, stating that the cassation appeals of the defender and the victim’s representative did not contain grounds for changing previous court decisions. Important arguments included both the absence of new circumstances and the confirmation of the correctness of legal application by lower instances.

The court decided to uphold the **sentence of the Dnipro Appellate Court** without changes, and the cassation appeals were dismissed.

Case No. 725/3154/23 dated 16/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The case concerns the **reinstatement at work** of INDIVIDUAL_1 (plaintiff) at the Municipal Enterprise “Chernivtsi Trolleybus Administration” (defendant) after being dismissed for allegedly gross violations of labor discipline.

2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The first-instance court indicated that the dismissal of INDIVIDUAL_1 was unlawful, as it had not been proven that there was a repeated violation of labor discipline, which is necessary for dismissal under Article 41 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The appellate court, in turn, dismissed the appeals, stating that the defendant did not justify the delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized the excessive formalism of the appellate court and the necessity of considering the circumstances that led to the delay, as well as the right of both parties to access justice.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court **granted the cassation appeal** of the defendant, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and remitted the case for reconsideration to the appellate court.

Case No. 759/6751/22 dated 04/09/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the **claims of INDIVIDUAL_1** for compensation for moral and property damage caused by the unlawful actions of government authorities during criminal prosecution.

2. In making its decision, the court was guided by the **need for compensation** due to the recognition of the criminal prosecution of INDIVIDUAL_1 as unlawful, and also took into account the duration and depth of the moral suffering inflicted on the plaintiff as a result of unlawful detention and arrest. The appellate court, however, increased the amount of compensation for moral damage to **5,000,000.00 UAH**, without considering the principles of reasonableness and fairness.

3. The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal, annulling the appellate court’s decision regarding the compensation for moral damage, and upheld the first-instance court’s decision, which set the amount of compensation for moral damage at **1,092,000.00 UAH**.

Case No. 366/744/20 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute**: The case concerns the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, which acquitted INDIVIDUAL_6 of the charges brought against him for committing criminal offenses.

**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court, reviewing the case, took into account that the decision of the appellate court was well-founded and complied with legal requirements, as the evidence presented during the case examination did not confirm INDIVIDUAL_6’s guilt in committing the criminal offenses stipulated in Part 2 of Article 342 and Part 1 of Article 345 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the ruling of the appellate court is final and not subject to appeal.

**Court Decision**: The court decided to leave the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged and the cassation appeal of the prosecutor was dismissed.

Case No. 554/10327/20 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute** is the establishment of paternity of INDIVIDUAL_4 regarding his son INDIVIDUAL_5, born in 2015, and making the corresponding changes to the child’s birth certificate.

2. **Main Arguments of the Court** were that the provided evidence, including the results of the forensic genetic examination, confirmed the biological relationship between INDIVIDUAL_5 and INDIVIDUAL_3 (grandfather), which is grounds for recognizing paternity. The court also noted that the defendant was duly notified about the consideration of the case, and her objections were deemed unfounded.

3. **The Court Decided** to dismiss the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_2, confirming the decisions of lower instances regarding the establishment of paternity of INDIVIDUAL_4 and making changes to the birth certificate of INDIVIDUAL_5.

Case No. 552/2135/22 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 demanded compensation for moral damage in the amount of 2,827,500 UAH, claiming that his rights to freedom and personal inviolability were violated due to unlawful detention and disregard for the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court, in reviewing the case, noted that the decisions of the ECHR cited by the plaintiff did not directly relate to the facts of unlawful detention after the issuance of these decisions and did not contain confirmation of the unlawfulness of the detention. Additionally, the courts of previous instances concluded that the plaintiff had already received compensations based on the ECHR decisions, thus repeating the claim for moral damage was unlawful.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, leaving the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged.

Case No. 757/36593/21-c dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute** is the claims of INDIVIDUAL_1 against the State Property Fund of Ukraine for reinstatement in position, recovery of average salary for the time of forced absence, and compensation for moral damage due to dismissal from work.

2. **Main Arguments of the Court** were that the courts of first and appellate instances did not take into account that the dispute is public law and should be considered in the framework of administrative proceedings. The Supreme Court pointed out that INDIVIDUAL_1, being a civil servant, is challenging his dismissal, which requires the application of administrative law norms, rather than civil law.

3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, annulling the decisions of the previous instance courts, and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining that the dispute should be examined in administrative proceedings.

Case No. 755/12237/19 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeal of the prosecutor** against the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court concerning the accusation of INDIVIDUAL_7 for committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court, in making its decision, considered the **procedural aspects** of the case, specifically noting that the ruling of the appellate court was not substantiated or could contain errors, which required its annulment and the appointment of a new hearing. The court was also guided by the principles of **access to justice** and **ensuring a fair trial**, affirming the necessity of a retrial at the appellate stage.

The court decided to **partially grant the cassation appeal of the prosecutor**, annulling the ruling of the appellate court and appointing a new hearing of the case in the appellate court.**Invalidation of decisions** of the Onufriivka Village Council, as well as the cancellation of state registration and reclamation of the land plot, which is under permanent use by a state enterprise.

The court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the prosecutor proved that the disputed land plot was in **permanent ownership of the state** through the State Enterprise “Horse Breeding of Ukraine,” and any further alienation, including transfer to private ownership and lease, is **illegal**. The court also noted that the return of the land plot pursues a legitimate goal of controlling land use in accordance with public interests.

The court ruled to **dismiss the cassation appeal** and confirmed the decisions of lower instances, which partially satisfied the prosecutor’s claim by reclaiming the land plot in favor of the state.

Case No. 824/94/23 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **application of PERSON_1** for the recognition of the enforcement orders issued by the Kyiv Court of Appeal as unenforceable in the case of recovery of debt under a loan agreement.

The court, in making its decision, partially satisfied the appeal due to the presence of grounds for changing the grounds of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, taking into account the specifics of the case and the arguments presented. At the same time, the court left part of the ruling unchanged, indicating partial support for the previous decision.

The decision made by the court involves the **partial satisfaction of the appeal of PERSON_1** and changing the grounds of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

Case No. 216/1675/22 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerned the cassation appeals of the convicted PERSON_5 against the sentence under which he was convicted of negligent homicide and the use of violence against a subordinate in a state of war.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court emphasized the absence of the convicted’s status as a military official, which was necessary for qualifying his actions under Article 426-1 of the Criminal Code. It was also established that the actions of PERSON_5 were negligent since the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill, necessitating a requalification of his actions under part 1 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code.

3. **Court’s decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, annulled the previous decisions regarding the conviction under part 5 of Article 426-1 of the Criminal Code, and found PERSON_5 guilty of negligent homicide, imposing a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment.

Case No. 369/2873/22 dated 21/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose from the return by the Kyiv Court of Appeal of the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the first instance court due to an allegedly missed deadline for appeal.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, reviewing the cassation appeal, noted that the appellate court did not properly verify the prosecutor’s compliance with the deadlines for submitting the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor did indeed submit the appeal within the legally defined period, thus the decision of the appellate court to return the appeal was premature and contained significant violations of procedural law.

3. **Court’s decision**: The Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the return of the appeal and appointed a new hearing in the appellate court.

Case No. 462/4186/22 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The claim of PERSON_1, in the interest of the minor PERSON_2, regarding the recognition as illegal and the cancellation of the order of the Railway District Administration of the Lviv City Council, as well as compensation for moral damage.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The first instance court partially satisfied the claim by annulling the contested order, indicating the illegitimacy of the commission that adopted it. However, it denied the claim for compensation for moral damage, considering that the plaintiff did not prove the causal link between the order and the inflicted suffering.

3. **Court’s decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, recognized the order of the Railway District Administration as illegal, but left unchanged the decision regarding the denial of the claims for compensation for moral damage.

Case No. 757/23813/21-c dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the state of Ukraine for compensation for moral damage caused by the inaction of pre-trial investigation bodies in a criminal proceeding.

The court, in making its decision, was guided by the arguments that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of moral damage, as well as the causal link between the inaction of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the suffering incurred. In turn, the appellate court partially satisfied the claim, as it recognized the fact of prolonged inaction that caused moral damage.

The court made a decision to annul the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the first instance court, denying the claim for compensation for moral damage.

Case No. 522/16363/16-c dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The claim of the Department of Communal Property of the Odesa City Council for the reclamation of a non-residential property from the possession of PERSON_1 and the cancellation of state registration of this property.

2. **Main arguments**: The court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the territorial community of Odesa was the owner of the disputed property, which was alienated based on a canceled court decision. The court noted that the statute of limitations for vindication claims had expired, therefore the Department had no right to reclaim the property, as the claim was filed after the expiration of three years from the moment the Department became aware of the violation of its rights.

3. **The court’s decision**: The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Department of Communal Property of the Odesa City Council unsatisfied, confirming the legality of previous decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.

Case No. 601/2035/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the purchase and sale agreement of a vehicle as invalid**, concluded between PERSON_3 and PERSON_2, in the context of a fraudulent transaction.

The court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the **intent** of the parties mentioned in the agreement to enter into a transaction with the aim of evading obligations to the creditor. It was established that the purchase and sale agreement was concluded before the initiation of enforcement proceedings, which also affected the court’s conclusions.

The court made a decision to **satisfy the claim** and recognize the disputed purchase and sale agreement as invalid, noting that entering into a transaction while obligations to the creditor are arising is fraudulent.

Case No. 523/8621/20 dated 09/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 for the recognition of the gift agreement as fictitious and the termination of this agreement, as well as the recognition of ownership of a share of the apartment and the eviction of PERSON_2.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The appellate court concluded that a purchase and sale agreement was actually concluded between the parties, rather than a gift agreement, as the transaction was executed with the purpose of concealing the true intentions of the parties. The court emphasized that the gift agreement violates the right of pre-emption of the other co-owner. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, confirmed that the appellate court incorrectly recognized the purchase and sale agreement as invalid, since the gift agreement itself is null and void due to non-compliance with legal requirements.

3. **Court’s decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulling the decision of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the purchase and sale agreement as invalid, while leaving other parts of the ruling unchanged.

Case No. 166/924/22 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal, which acquitted PERSON_7 of the charges of committing a criminal offense under part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court, while reviewing the case, took into account that the appellate court reasonably made the decision to acquit PERSON_7, as the insufficiency of evidence in the case did not allow confirming his guilt in committing the alleged crime. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecutor did not provide convincing arguments for the annulment of the ruling of the appellate instance.

As a result, the court decided to leave the **ruling of the Volyn Court of Appeal unchanged**, and the **cassation appeal of the prosecutor – unsatisfied**.

Case No. 682/893/20 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case in which the convicted PERSON_8 and PERSON_9 appeal the sentences of the lower courts, which…1. They were found guilty of committing a number of criminal offenses, including illegal logging, theft of forest products, and causing bodily harm to law enforcement officers.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals, confirmed the correctness of the application of the norms of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances, in particular noting the presence of sufficient evidence of the guilt of the convicted, presented through the testimonies of the victims, physical evidence, and expert conclusions. The court also emphasized that the justification of the punishment meets the requirements of the legislation and is fair, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the personality of the convicted individuals.

3. **Court decision**: The court upheld the sentences of the courts of first and appellate instances, leaving the cassation appeals of the convicted without satisfaction.

Case No. 752/19960/16 dated 15/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose in connection with the cassation appeal of the prosecutor regarding the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal concerning the accused INDIVIDUAL_8 for committing a criminal offense.

**Main arguments of the court**: The court, in examining the case, was guided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, noting that the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal was lawful and justified. The court also considered that the prosecutor did not provide convincing evidence to change the decision of the appellate instance.

**Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the prosecutor without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.

Case No. 592/9968/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the gift agreements of real estate concluded by INDIVIDUAL_2 in favor of his wife and daughter, aimed at evading obligations under the loan agreement with the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1.

2. **The court in making the decision** was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence confirming the bad faith of the defendants in concluding the contested gift agreements, as well as that the transactions do not contradict the norms of law. The court noted that the concluded gift agreements do not contain signs of fictitiousness, as it was not proven that they were made with the intention to evade obligations.

3. **The court decided** to leave the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

Case No. 293/174/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is INDIVIDUAL_1’s claim for compensation for moral damage in the amount of 1,000,000 UAH, caused by the illegal actions of the pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office, in connection with her wrongful accusation of criminal offenses.

The court in making the decision was guided by the main arguments that INDIVIDUAL_1 was illegally under investigation and court proceedings for almost four years, which led to significant moral suffering, including loss of social status and reputation. The court also noted the significant amount of damage, which required compensation greater than the minimum amount guaranteed by law.

The court decided to reduce the amount of compensation for moral damage from 450,000 UAH to 297,480 UAH, acknowledging that this amount is sufficient to compensate for the negative moral consequences, considering the circumstances of the case.

Case No. 225/7530/21 dated 15/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerned the cassation appeal of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_5 against the verdict of the Kostiantynivka District Court and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court in a criminal proceeding regarding accusations of committing serious criminal offenses.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, in examining the case, concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal did not contain new circumstances that could influence the previous decisions. At the same time, the court assessed the evidence and circumstances of the case in the context of the law, concluding that it was appropriate to maintain the previously imposed punishments for the convicted, particularly considering the cumulative nature of the crimes.

3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, changing the previous decisions regarding the convicted individuals, closing the criminal proceedings on one of the charges and determining the final punishments in the form of imprisonment for a term of 14 years.

Case No. 204/10216/22 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The lawsuit of INDIVIDUAL_1 against the State Enterprise “Shakhtoupravlinnya Pokrovske” regarding the recognition of the order to cease the payment of average salary during military service as unlawful.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court noted that the amendments to Article 119 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which came into force on July 19, 2022, eliminate the employer’s obligation to retain average earnings for employees called up for military service, which is lawful within the context of the new legislative norms. The court also emphasized that prior to the enactment of the new law, the defendant indeed had an obligation to retain average earnings, but this obligation was canceled after the law came into effect.

3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.

Case No. 824/28/22 dated 25/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The issue is about the deferral of the execution of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court obliging the Public Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company Energoatom” to pay a debt of 435,265.02 euros.

2. **Main arguments of the court** in making the decision are based on the fact that the Kyiv Appellate Court did not take into account the imperative requirements of part five of Article 435 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which limits the possibility of deferring the execution of a court decision to one year from the moment of its adoption. The Supreme Court also confirmed that the circumstances complicating the execution of the decision are not grounds for extending this term.

3. **Court decision** consists of partially satisfying the appeal of BRV TRAIDE S.R.O., canceling the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court dated June 27, 2024, and denying the application of the Public Joint Stock Company “Energoatom” for the deferral of the execution of the court decision.

Case No. 185/9284/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is **the recognition of the actions of the notary office as illegal**, related to the issuance of certificates of inheritance rights and informing the plaintiff, INDIVIDUAL_1, as an heir about the opening of the inheritance case after the death of his father.

The court in making the decision was guided by the fact that **the plaintiff did not prove the notary’s violation of the legal requirements** regarding notification about the inheritance, as he did not take the necessary actions to accept it. Moreover, the courts considered that recognizing the actions of the notary as illegal would not restore the plaintiff’s rights, as he is not an heir who accepted the inheritance.

The court decided to **leave the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 without satisfaction** and confirmed the legality of the actions of the notary office.

Case No. 752/26562/18 dated 09/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the recovery of debt under loan agreements between INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2.

**Main arguments of the court:** The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claim, as it found that the funds were not transferred by the borrower on the specified dates, and the existence of receipts does not confirm the conclusion of a loan agreement. The appellate court partially satisfied the claim, indicating that the receipt for the loan of 40,000 dollars confirms the debt relations, but left the claim for the amount of 2,972,837 dollars without satisfaction due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

**Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decision of the appellate court regarding the claim for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement dated November 11, 2013, and remanded the case for a new hearing, leaving unchanged the decision regarding the debt under the loan agreement dated June 10, 2015.

Case No. 344/12972/22 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is **the determination of the place of residence of minor children** of divorced parents INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2.

In making the decision, the court was guided by several main arguments: first, the appellate court noted that both parents duly fulfill their parental obligations and are willing to raise the children, while no circumstances were established that would prevent the children from living with either parent. The court also relied on the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the **model of joint physical custody** and its compliance with the interests of the children.

The court decided to **overturn the ruling of the appellate court**, obliging it to conduct a new hearing of the case to further clarify the possibility of alternating residence of the children with both parents, taking into account their interests and the existing circumstances.Case No. 522/21784/17 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the unlawful nature and cancellation of decisions regarding the state registration of ownership rights to apartments, which were registered in the name of PJSC CB “PrivatBank” under a mortgage agreement between the bank, INDIVIDUAL_1, and INDIVIDUAL_2.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court of first instance, followed by the appellate court, concluded that the state registration of ownership rights to the apartments was conducted in violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgages,” particularly due to the lack of property valuation, as well as the absence of proper notification to the claimant regarding the rectification of violations. The court emphasized that without a valuation of the property, lawful registration of ownership rights cannot be conducted.

3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PJSC CB “PrivatBank” unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the cancellation of the registration of ownership rights to the disputed apartments.

Case No. 754/11745/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case involves the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 for compensation for property and moral damages caused by the destruction and damage of his vehicles, which were located in the underground parking area managed by the defendants.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court’s decision is based on the fact that the claimant did not prove the occurrence of damage by the defendants, nor was a causal link established between the actions of the defendants and the damage incurred. The court noted that the claimant used the parking space without a proper legal basis and that he was not deprived of the right to seek compensation for damages within the framework of criminal proceedings.

3. **Court decision**: The court denied the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 752/9361/21 dated 21/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The case concerns the cassation appeal of the defender of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_10 against the verdict of the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeals in a criminal proceeding for the commission of criminal offenses under part 1 of Article 122 and part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that the defender’s arguments regarding the violation of the convict’s rights, particularly concerning the absence of a legal representative, are unsubstantiated, as INDIVIDUAL_10’s interests were represented by a professional defender. The court also confirmed that the consideration of the case in a shortened manner complies with legal requirements, as the convict admitted guilt, and the defender did not contest this aspect of the decision.

3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decision concerning procedural costs, ordering the return of the court fee to the injured party and placing the costs for the examination on the state.