Case No. 991/10700/23 dated 29/10/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the **imposition of sanctions** on individuals and legal entities, specifically citizens of the Russian Federation and a joint-stock company, in connection with their involvement in activities that fall under the sanctions legislation in Ukraine.
2. In making its decision, the court was guided by the arguments regarding the **necessity to protect Ukraine’s national interests**, particularly based on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions,” which provides for the possibility of imposing sanctions on individuals who act to the detriment of national security. The court recognized that the assets specified in the case are under the control of sanctioned individuals and must therefore be seized for the state’s benefit.
3. The court decided to **partially satisfy the claim** and impose sanctions on PERSON_2, the joint-stock company “GROUP HMC,” and PERSON_4, as well as to seize a number of assets for the state’s benefit.
Case No. 466/10540/19 dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is the **cassation appeal** of the convicted PERSON_5 against the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal concerning the charge of committing a **criminal offense** under Part 2 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the **evidence** presented during the proceedings confirmed the **legality** of the lower court decisions and noted the absence of grounds for altering the verdict or ruling, as no new circumstances were provided that would necessitate a review of the case.
As a result, the court decided to **dismiss** the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_5, leaving the verdict and the ruling of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 344/6833/22 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeals** of the defenders, the victim, and the prosecutor against the verdict of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court and the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal.
In making its decision, the court noted that it found no grounds for changing or overturning the contested decisions, as they were made in accordance with the requirements of the law. Evaluating the provided arguments, the court concluded that they did not contain new circumstances that could affect the outcome of the case.
The court decided to leave the verdict of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court and the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Court of Appeal unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeals.
Case No. 344/6833/22 dated 22/10/2024
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court, which sentenced PERSON_5 to imprisonment for violating traffic rules that led to the death of a pedestrian.
2. In rendering its decision, the court relied on the fact that the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence concerned their credibility rather than their admissibility; furthermore, it noted that the convicted person did not deny his involvement in the traffic accident, and the imposed penalty corresponded to the aims of correction and prevention of new crimes.
3. The court upheld the verdict of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court and the ruling of the appellate court, denying the cassation appeals.
Case No. 753/9237/23 dated 22/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose regarding the appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which refused to open an appellate proceeding concerning the ruling of the Sviatoshyn District Court regarding the refusal to clarify the court decision.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, upon examining the cassation appeal, concluded that the ruling of the appellate court was unlawful, as there is an opportunity under procedural law to challenge a ruling refusing to clarify a court decision. The court emphasized that the defender’s appellate complaint deserves consideration, as the refusal to open proceedings violates the accused’s right to appeal.
3. **Court decision**: The court granted the cassation appeal of the defender, annulled the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 366/169/23 dated 21/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The cassation appeal of PERSON_6 against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal denying the extension of the term for appellate review.
**Main arguments of the court**: The court noted that the ruling of the appellate court was issued by a single judge, which violates the requirements of the criminal procedural law, as the issue of extending the term for appellate review should be considered collegially. The court viewed this violation as significant, which could affect the legality and justification of the decision.
**Court decision**: The court annulled the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 545/2419/19 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case is the legality of imposing an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property for the convicted PERSON_6 for committing criminal offenses under Parts 2 of Article 307, Part 3 of Article 311, and Part 3 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The judges of the Supreme Court, examining the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, indicated that the decision to impose an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property did not comply with legal requirements, particularly that the justification for this penalty in the context of the specific case was insufficient. The court also argued that when imposing a penalty, the specifics of the case and the circumstances concerning the convicted individual should be taken into account.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, amending the previous decisions of the first and appellate courts by excluding the imposition of property confiscation as an additional penalty.
Case No. 607/13347/22 dated 28/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the verdict of the Ternopil City District Court and the ruling of the Ternopil Court of Appeal in a criminal proceeding for the accusation of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court, while examining the case, was guided by the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine, particularly Article 284, noting that the criminal proceedings should be closed due to the expiration of the law that established the criminality of the act. Thus, the arguments centered on the absence of grounds for criminal liability in this case.
The court decided to **grant the cassation appeal**, annul the previous verdicts, and close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, releasing him from the correctional colony.
Case No. 127/16264/22 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **appeal against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal**, which modified the verdict of the Lityn District Court of Vinnytsia Region regarding the punishment of PERSON_7, who was convicted of **violating traffic rules** that resulted in fatalities.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the requirements of the **Criminal Procedural Code** concerning the review of decisions of previous instances and noted that the appellate court unlawfully applied the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code, leading to the imposition of **unjustifiably lenient punishment** for PERSON_7, which did not correspond to the severity of the committed crime. The court also emphasized that the acknowledgment of guilt by the convicted individual cannot automatically indicate genuine remorse or mitigate the severity of the crime.
The court decided to **grant the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the victim’s representative**, annul the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, and schedule a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 466/10540/19 dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeal** of the convicted PERSON_5 against the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, in which he was found guilty of **robbery**.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by arguments that the cassation appeal did not contain new arguments that would refute the established guilt of PERSON_5, and that the decisions of the first and appellate courts were substantiated and based on proper and admissible evidence, including the testimony of the victim and the results of medical examinations. The court noted that the content of the contested decisions meets the requirements of criminal procedural legislation.
The court decided to **dismiss the cassation appeal**, leaving the contested decisions unchanged.
Case No. 756/9617/19 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **cassation appeal** of the convicted PERSON_6 against the rulings of the regional court, which dismissed his request for a review of the verdict based on newly discovered circumstances. The court, while examining this case, focused on **procedural violations**.**Subject of the dispute**: The appeal is against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal regarding the conviction of INDIVIDUAL_7 under Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court, while considering the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the representative of the victim, was guided by the necessity to ensure fair judicial proceedings and legality in the decision of the previous instance. The court noted potential violations of procedural norms or inconsistencies in the conclusions of the appellate court with respect to the circumstances of the case.
In making its decision, the court granted the cassation appeals and annulled the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, appointing a **new hearing** of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 396/1750/15-k dated 28/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The cassation appeal of the defender of INDIVIDUAL_8 against the sentence of the Novoukrainka District Court and the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal in the case of a criminal offense provided for in Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court, assessing the materials of the case, paid attention to the compliance with procedural legislation and the reasonableness of the decisions of lower instances, particularly noting that the sentence and ruling were made considering all circumstances of the case and the availability of sufficient evidence of the guilt of the convicted, which confirms the legality and reasonableness of the decisions made.
The court decided to leave the sentence of the Novoukrainka District Court and the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender was dismissed.
Case No. 766/23615/21 dated 22/10/2024
In this case, the subject of the dispute is the **criminal charge** against INDIVIDUAL_6 for committing an offense provided for in Parts 2 of Article 15 and Part 1 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
In issuing its decision, the court was guided, among other things, by the **general principles of sentencing** and consideration of the circumstances of the case that led to the decision to grant a suspended sentence. It was also taken into account that INDIVIDUAL_6 demonstrated positive behavior during the execution of the sentence, which served as a basis for mitigating the penalty.
The court decided to **partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor** and modify the ruling of the appellate court, leaving INDIVIDUAL_6 with a punishment in the form of corrective labor for a period of 1 year, with the condition of release from punishment under Article 75 of the Criminal Code with a probationary period of 1 year.
Case No. 756/9617/19 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the review based on newly discovered circumstances of the sentence of the Obolon District Court of Kyiv rendered against INDIVIDUAL_6.
The court was guided by the arguments that new circumstances have arisen that may affect the fairness of the case review, as well as the right of the convicted person to a retrial in the court of first instance. An important point was that the previous court decisions did not take into account these new facts, which raises doubts about the legality of their decisions.
The court decided to grant the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_6, annul the rulings of the previous courts, and appoint a new hearing of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 207/1109/19 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the sentence of the Bahlii District Court, which convicted INDIVIDUAL_8 for committing a robbery, as well as the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, which upheld this sentence.
The court, in its decision, was guided by the fact that the defense’s arguments about the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case were not substantiated, as both the court of first instance and the appellate court provided a proper assessment of the evidence and testimonies, particularly the victim’s testimony, which confirmed INDIVIDUAL_8’s participation in the crime, and recognized the selfish motive behind the actions of the convicted individuals.
The court decided to uphold the sentence of the Bahlii District Court dated November 29, 2023, and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal dated April 4, 2024, unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender of INDIVIDUAL_6 was dismissed.
Case No. 629/2438/23 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_6 against the ruling of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, which annulled the decision of the first instance court. **Subject of the dispute**: The case involves the **recognition of a transaction as invalid** and the **recognition of the right to possession and use of real estate** by the Limited Liability Company “Rent Control” against the Law Firm “Senate,” as well as a counterclaim for the **termination of the lease right**.
The court, while examining the case, referred to the provisions of the **Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine**, analyzing the validity of the cassation appeals submitted by the Company. The court concluded that the lease agreement in question was executed in violation of applicable laws, which undermined the legal foundation of the transaction. Consequently, the court found that the claimant had not sufficiently substantiated their claims regarding the legality of the lease agreement, leading to the decision to uphold the invalidity of the transaction.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, confirming the invalidity of the disputed transaction and the termination of the lease right as requested by the Law Firm “Senate.”No arguments were made regarding the insufficiency of grounds for the annulment of previous decisions, as well as the fact that the decisions of the appellate court remain in force since no violations of substantive or procedural law were found.
The court ruled to uphold the ruling of the Southwestern Appellate Economic Court, which considered both the primary and counterclaims, indicating a confirmation of the court’s previous position.
Case No. 910/2248/23 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the illegal inactivity** of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and the obligation to take certain actions at the request of the private joint-stock company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo”.
In making its decision, the court relied on the fact that the **inactivity** of the defendant was not supported by sufficient evidence and emphasized that the **obligation** to take actions is not appropriate in this case. The court also noted that the decisions of the lower instances are justified and comply with the requirements of the law.
As a result, the court left the **cassation appeal unresolved**, and the decision of the Economic Court and the ruling of the Northern Appellate Economic Court remained unchanged.
Case No. 924/298/23 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the results of a public procurement** and the electricity supply contract as invalid, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the Khmelnytsky Regional Council and the Western Office of the State Audit Office of Ukraine.
In making its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the **plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence** to substantiate their claims regarding the invalidity of the procurement results and the corresponding contract. The court also took into account that the absence of plaintiffs’ representatives during the hearing did not affect the ability to conduct a full hearing of the case.
The court decided to leave the **cassation appeal unresolved**, and the ruling of the previous instance was left unchanged.
Case No. 990/147/23 dated 10/10/2024
1. The **subject of the dispute** is the recognition and annulment of the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the imposition of sanctions against INDIVIDUAL_1.
2. **The parties to the case** are the plaintiff, a citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, seeking the annulment of the sanctions, and the defendants – the President of Ukraine and state institutions supporting the imposed sanctions.
3. **Previous court decisions** ruled to leave the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 without consideration due to the absence of the plaintiff’s representative at the court sessions.
4. **Key facts and arguments**: The court noted that the plaintiff’s representative failed to appear at two court sessions without valid reasons and did not submit a request for the case to be considered in their absence, which violates Article 205 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The plaintiff argued that the court did not ensure their participation via video conference; however, the court established that no such requests had been submitted. The Grand Chamber also noted the lack of interest from the plaintiff in the case during the period between sessions and the absence of attempts to ensure participation via video link. These circumstances confirmed the legality of the decision to leave the claim without consideration.
5. **Court decision**: The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appeal unresolved and confirmed the decision of the first instance court regarding the dismissal of the claim.
Case No. 947/4615/23 dated 18/10/2024
The **subject of the dispute**: The case involves a dispute between INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2, INDIVIDUAL_3, and a private notary regarding the recognition of the sales contract for an apartment concluded between INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2 as invalid, as well as the recovery of property from the illegal possession of INDIVIDUAL_3.
**Key arguments of the court**: In making its decision, the court relied on the fact that the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 misunderstood the legal nature of the concluded contract, believing it to be a lifelong maintenance contract, and the actual transfer of the apartment did not occur since the payments were not made. The court also considered the health condition and advanced age of the plaintiff, which confirms her inability to adequately assess the terms of the contract at the time of its conclusion.
**Court decision**: The court partially granted the claim, declaring the sales contract invalid and recovering the apartment from the illegal possession of INDIVIDUAL_3 in favor of INDIVIDUAL_1.
Case No. 757/27799/21-ц dated 18/10/2024
1. The **subject of the dispute** is INDIVIDUAL_1’s claim for reinstatement to their position in the National Bank of Ukraine and the recovery of average wages for the period of forced absenteeism following dismissal due to staff reductions.
2. **In making its decision**, the court was guided by the fact that the employer fulfilled its obligations regarding employment by offering the plaintiff suitable vacancies, which he refused. The appellate court, however, concluded that the employer did not provide the plaintiff with all available vacancies corresponding to his qualifications, which is a violation of labor legislation.
3. **The court ruled** to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the National Bank of Ukraine, amending the amount of average wages to be recovered considering taxes, and canceled the additional ruling of the appellate court, remitting the case for a new hearing in this part.
Case No. 295/6178/22 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of INDIVIDUAL_2 as having lost the right to use the residential premises** at ADDRESS_1 based on the acquisition of ownership rights to the premises by INDIVIDUAL_1.
In making its decision, the court was guided by arguments indicating that INDIVIDUAL_2, as a former family member of the previous owner, loses the right to use the dwelling due to the transfer of ownership rights. The court also considered that INDIVIDUAL_2 had not lived in the disputed house for an extended period and ignored requests for deregistration. The court also noted that it was necessary to verify whether the disputed house was the only dwelling for INDIVIDUAL_2.
The court annulled the decision of the Bohun District Court of Zhytomyr and the ruling of the Zhytomyr Appellate Court, returning the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Case No. 941/515/21 dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the lease agreement as invalid, concluded between the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 and the defendant LLC “Druzhba,” as well as the annulment of the registration record of this right.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The court, analyzing the circumstances of the case, focused on the lack of sufficient evidence of fraud by the defendant, noting that the plaintiff was aware of the legal nature of the concluded agreement. The court also established that the agreement complies with the requirements of the legislation, contains all essential conditions, and was duly registered.
3. **Court decision**: The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unresolved and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the legality of the concluded contract.
Case No. 637/573/21 dated 28/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The case concerned the recognition of the invalidity of orders issued by the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Kharkiv Region regarding a land plot that is in permanent use by the Peasant (Farm) Economy “Zorya.”
**Key arguments of the court**: In making its decision, the court relied on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, specifically emphasizing that the appeal was filed in violation of established deadlines, as well as the availability of evidence confirming the defendant’s awareness of the case hearing. The court also noted that, according to the law, if an appeal is filed after the expiration of the one-year term, the appellate court is obliged to refuse to open proceedings, regardless of the reasons for missing the deadline.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unresolved and the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 473/2093/24 dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Recognition of the invalidity of the decision regarding the termination of the lease of a land plot and recognition of the right to lease by inheritance.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court, considering the case, indicated that the dispute arose from inheritance legal relations, as INDIVIDUAL_1, as an heir, challenged the decision that violated his inheritance rights. The court also noted that the status of the plaintiff as an individual entrepreneur does not affect the jurisdiction of the case, as the dispute concerns inheritance rights, which must be examined in civil proceedings.
3. **Court decision**: The cassation appeal of the Pribuzhanivka Village Council was left unresolved, and the ruling of the appellate court was left unchanged.
