**Case No. 615/413/17 dated 24/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the justification of an individual accused of exceeding official powers, which resulted in bodily harm.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court of cassation pointed out significant violations committed by the appellate court, particularly regarding the incomplete examination of evidence and insufficient reasoning of the ruling. The court noted that the appellate instance did not take into account the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the rejection of important evidence and also failed to conduct a re-examination of the circumstances, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
**Court ruling:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, canceled the ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court, and appointed a new hearing in the appellate court.
—
**Case No. 176/1567/22 dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the suspension of enforcement actions in the enforcement proceedings regarding the recovery of funds in the amount of UAH 120,000.00 from the State Enterprise “Eastern Mining and Processing Plant” in favor of INDIVIDUAL_1 for compensation for moral damages.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court stated that the state executor acted within the law, as compensation for moral damages is not included in the exceptions provided in paragraphs 1-4 of Chapter XIII of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” The Supreme Court confirmed that, although compensation for moral damages is related to employment relations, it does not fall under the definition of “compensation” in the context of labor legislation norms.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 ungranted, confirming the legality of the ruling of the Zhovti Vody City Court and the decision of the Dnipro Appellate Court.
—
**Case No. 924/1024/22 dated 25/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the reclamation of a land plot from the illegal possession of the Farming Enterprise “Eco-Zemlia” into the communal ownership of the Zhvanets Village Council.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court ruled that the decision to transfer the disputed land plot to the ownership of an individual was not made in accordance with the legislation, as the village council did not make a decision to alienate this plot. Additionally, the court stated that the prosecutor did not miss the deadlines for filing a lawsuit, as they only learned about the illegal removal of the plot in October 2022.
**Court ruling:** The court upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the reclamation of the land plot from illegal possession into the ownership of the Zhvanets Village Council.
—
**Case No. 187/29/21 dated 14/08/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the **lifting of the arrest** on a land plot imposed as a result of criminal proceedings and enforcement actions.
The court, in making its decision, ruled that **disputes regarding the lifting of an arrest on property** imposed within criminal proceedings should be considered under the rules of **criminal procedure**, rather than civil. The court also noted that the plaintiff, who considers himself a bona fide acquirer of the land plot, can challenge the arrest only within the framework of the criminal proceedings, as the arrest was imposed to preserve physical evidence.
The court decided to **partially satisfy the cassation appeal**, canceling the decisions of the previous courts regarding the lifting of the arrest on the land plot and closing the proceedings in this part, clarifying that the issue of lifting the arrest should be resolved within the framework of the criminal proceedings.
—
**Case No. 904/366/23 dated 29/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the claim of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator” Dniprovs’k gas regarding the recovery of debt from PJSC “Marganets Repair Plant” for natural gas distribution services.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court stated that the application for the review of the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances did not contain new evidence or significant circumstances that were unknown during the previous consideration of the case. Evaluating the presented arguments, the court noted that the facts referred to by the complainant were already known to him and therefore could not be recognized as newly discovered.
**Court ruling:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PJSC “Marganets Repair Plant” ungranted, and the ruling of the Central Appellate Economic Court dated 17.06.2024 unchanged.
—
**Case No. 642/3791/21 dated 21/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the legality and justification of the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court, which imposed a penalty on INDIVIDUAL_8 for intentional property damage by arson.
The court, considering the cassation appeal, took into account that the decision of the appellate court complied with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, particularly considering the severity of the crime, the personality of the offender, and the absence of mitigating circumstances, as the arson was committed at night, posing a threat to human life. The court also emphasized that the genuine remorse of the accused was not supported by specific actions on his part.
As a result, the court left the cassation appeal of the defender ungranted, and the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court unchanged.
—
**Case No. 755/4970/22 dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute** concerns the legality of the verdicts rendered against INDIVIDUAL_7 accused of theft during martial law.
2. **Main arguments of the court** were that according to the amendments made to the criminal legislation, the actions for which INDIVIDUAL_7 was accused are no longer criminally liable, as the value of the stolen property does not exceed the established limit. The court stated that the new law has retroactive effect and cancels the criminal illegality of the act, which entails the closure of the criminal proceedings.
3. **Court ruling** was to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the previous verdicts, and close the criminal proceedings against INDIVIDUAL_7.
—
**Case No. 190/130/22 dated 18/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute** concerns the return of a land plot, which the plaintiff, an individual entrepreneur INDIVIDUAL_1, claims he has the right to use through a previously concluded lease agreement, but the agreement was terminated without his consent.
2. **Main arguments of the court** were that the plaintiff did not confirm his rights with proper evidence, specifically the absence of a signature on the additional agreement for the termination of the contract, which did not allow for an examination to confirm the signature. The court noted that according to Ukrainian legislation, an agreement cannot be deemed concluded if it is not signed by both parties. The appellate court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not claim for the cancellation of state registration of rights, which is necessary for the return of the land plot.
3. **Court ruling** involved partially satisfying the cassation appeal of the plaintiff, whereby the ruling of the appellate court was amended, but in other respects, it was left unchanged.
—
**Case No. 185/5253/14-k dated 28/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_2 against the verdict of the Pavlograd City District Court and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court.
The court, considering the cassation appeal, ruled that the convicted individual did not comply with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, in particular, did not specify the specific significant violations of the law that could serve as grounds for the annulment of the court decisions and did not provide the necessary documents confirming her claims. The court also noted that the requests for recognition of innocence do not fall within the competence of the cassation court.
The court decided to refuse INDIVIDUAL_2 in the request to retrieve the case for review in cassation.
—
**Case No. 752/6393/22 dated 24/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the cassation appeal of the defender on the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the accusation of an individual in state treason.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court, analyzing the case, pointed out **significant violations of the criminal procedural law**, particularly regarding the composition of the court, as the first instance court did not comply with the requirements for collegial consideration of the criminal proceedings after satisfying the defense’s motion. The cassation court emphasized that the decision was made by an unlawful composition of the court, which is an unconditional basis for its annulment.
**Court ruling:** The court granted the cassation appeal of the defender, annulled the verdict of the Holosiivskyi District Court and the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, appointing a new hearing in the first instance court.ішення, але виявила, що дії ПрАТ “Концерн Стирол” були проведені з порушенням законодавства про природні монополії, оскільки не було належного узгодження з АТ “Укртрансгаз”.
Суд зазначив, що укладений правочин щодо відбору природного газу є недійсним, оскільки він суперечить нормам законодавства і порушує права державного підприємства.
**Рішення суду:** Верховний Суд задовольнив позов ПрАТ “Концерн Стирол”, визнав правочин недійсним і зобов’язав державного виконавця вжити заходів для усунення наслідків незаконного відбору природного газу.ління) не є підставою для автоматичного припинення трудових відносин. Суд зазначив, що для припинення трудового договору необхідно дотримуватись відповідних процедур, встановлених трудовим законодавством.
Суд прийняв рішення визнати, що трудові відносини між ОСОБА_1 та ЖБК «Арсеналець-3» не були належним чином припинені, і задовольнив позов ОСОБА_1, зобов’язавши кооператив відновити його на посаді.
Справа №755/12057/22 від 28/10/2024
**Предмет спору**: Спір виник щодо правомірності звільнення ОСОБА_2 з посади бухгалтера ТОВ «Приватна фірма», яке відбулося за ініціативою керівництва.
**Основні аргументи суду**: Суд, розглядаючи справу, звернув увагу на те, що звільнення було проведене без дотримання необхідних процедур, зокрема без попередження про звільнення та без належного документального оформлення. Суд підтвердив, що трудове законодавство передбачає обов’язковість дотримання відповідних норм щодо звільнення працівників.
**Рішення суду**: Суд визнав звільнення ОСОБА_2 незаконним, зобов’язавши ТОВ «Приватна фірма» відновити його на роботі та виплатити компенсацію за вимушений прогул.
Справа №755/12058/22 від 28/10/2024
**Предмет спору**: Спір виник у зв’язку зі скаргою ОСОБА_3 на рішення керівництва ТОВ «Будівельна компанія» про зміну умов праці.
**Основні аргументи суду**: Суд зазначив, що зміна істотних умов праці може відбуватися лише за згодою працівника, а не за ініціативою роботодавця, якщо це не передбачено трудовим договором. Суд також підкреслив, що в даному випадку відсутні докази на підтвердження необхідності змін, що були ініційовані компанією.
**Рішення суду**: Суд задовольнив скаргу ОСОБА_3, скасувавши рішення ТОВ «Будівельна компанія» про зміну умов праці, зобов’язавши компанію дотримуватись попередніх умов трудового договору.**Subject of the dispute:** The matter concerns the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the verdict of the Kyiv District Court of Odesa, which found him guilty of committing a criminal offense that resulted in the death of the victim due to a traffic accident.
**Court’s decision-making considerations:** In rendering its decision, the court took into account that PERSON_6 fully acknowledged his guilt in committing the alleged offense and agreed to the case being considered in a simplified manner without examination of evidence, and also complied with procedural requirements established by the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the arguments of the convicted regarding substantial violations of procedural law and the unfairness of the imposed sentence were not supported by the materials of the case.
**Court’s ruling:** The court decided to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the verdict and rulings of previous courts were upheld.
**Case No. 201/11949/23 dated 24/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** The court examined the case concerning the cassation appeals of the defender of convicted PERSON_6 and the representative of the victim PERSON_10 against the verdict of the Dnipro Appellate Court, which altered the punishment for causing a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a pedestrian.
**Key arguments of the court:** In rendering its decision, the court based its ruling on the circumstances of the case, notably that PERSON_6, although found guilty of committing a crime, did not exercise due care for road safety, leading to severe consequences. The court also considered that previous rulings did not fully assess all circumstances of the case, including the personality of the convicted and his prior offenses in the field of road traffic.
**Court’s decision:** The cassation court upheld the verdict of the Dnipro Appellate Court, dismissing the cassation appeals of the defender and the representative of the victim.
**Case No. 466/9119/23 dated 21/10/2024**
**Subject of the dispute:** This case involves the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv and the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court regarding PERSON_8, who was convicted of theft under martial law.
**Key arguments of the court:** The court was guided by an analysis of changes in legislation, specifically Law No. 3886-IX, which introduced new rules regarding criminal liability for petty thefts. In making its decision, the court established that the value of the stolen property (456.50 UAH) does not exceed 2 non-taxable minimum incomes, which excludes criminal liability for this act. The court also noted that the introduction of new norms has retroactive effect, hence the criminal proceeding concerning this episode should be closed.
**Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, closed the criminal proceeding regarding PERSON_8 under Part 2 of Article 15, Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, as the law establishing the criminality of the act had ceased to be in force, and upheld the other rulings of the courts.
**Case No. 709/796/15-k dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** In this case, the Supreme Court examined the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the verdict of the Chornobayivskyi District Court, which acquitted PERSON_7 in the case of a traffic accident that resulted in the death of a cyclist.
2. **Key arguments of the court:** In rendering its decision, the court adhered to the principle of the presumption of innocence, stating that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of PERSON_7 in committing the criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that all elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the cyclist changed direction, which caused the accident.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the Chornobayivskyi District Court and the ruling of the Cherkasy Appellate Court, rejecting the cassation appeal of the prosecutor.
**Case No. 569/12727/13-k dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The matter concerns the annulment of the ruling of the Rivne Appellate Court, which closed the criminal proceeding against PERSON_7 due to the death of the accused.
2. The court, in considering the case, relied on the prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court failed to comply with the requirements of criminal procedural law, in particular, did not provide adequate responses to the prosecution’s arguments and did not execute the directives of the cassation court, leading to significant violations in the ruling. The court noted that the closure of the criminal proceeding was inappropriate, as the requirements for justifying the decision were not met.
3. **Court’s decision:** The court decided to annul the ruling of the appellate court and appoint a new hearing in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 708/638/19 dated 24/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** This case involves the challenge of the ruling of the Cherkasy Appellate Court regarding the closure of the criminal proceeding against PERSON_6 for the alleged commission of a crime provided for in Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, resulting from a traffic accident.
2. **The court noted** that the ruling of the appellate court did not meet the requirements of legislation, as procedural norms were not adhered to during the case consideration, while the prosecutor’s and victim’s arguments regarding the presence of a crime in the actions of the accused, who left the victim without assistance, were not properly examined. The court emphasized that even if assistance could not have prevented the victim’s death, the actual abandonment of a person in a dangerous state entails criminal liability.
3. **Court’s decision:** The court decided to partially grant the cassation appeals and annul the ruling of the appellate court, appointing a new hearing in the appellate instance with an emphasis on strict adherence to procedural norms and a proper examination of the case.
**Case No. 910/5375/21 dated 28/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the recognition of transactions as invalid and the recovery of property from illegal possession, as well as the recognition of property rights to disputed real estate.
2. **In rendering its decision**, the court was guided by the argument that the execution of the order of the Ministry of Justice to cancel registration actions does not lead to the transfer of rights to the disputed property in a material legal relationship, and previous decisions did not take into account the necessity of replacing the debtor in the enforcement proceedings, as the disputed property was unlawfully alienated from the legal owner. The Supreme Court emphasized that the claimant’s rights to recover the property remain relevant despite changes in registration data.
3. **Court’s decision:** The court decided to grant the cassation appeal of LLC “Regional Resources,” annul the previous rulings, and execute the replacement of the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.
**Case No. 927/909/21 dated 23/10/2024**
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the recognition of actions of the Ripky District State Administration as unlawful and the annulment of orders granting plots of land into private ownership, as well as the removal of obstacles in the use and disposal of these plots.
2. **Key arguments of the court:** The court, when considering the case, emphasized the absence of proper evidence confirming that the disputed plots belong to water fund lands or coastal protective strips. The court also considered the conclusions of experts and relevant materials indicating the legality of the transfer of these lands into ownership, confirming compliance with procedural and substantive norms of law.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, affirming the legality and reasonableness of the decisions of previous instances.3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially upheld the cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 924/1022/22 dated 25/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute**: The case concerns the reclamation of a land plot from the illegal possession of the Eco-Zemlia Farm to the communal property of the Zhvanets Village Council.
**Main Arguments**: In making its decision, the court relied on the fact that the procedure for transferring the disputed land plot into ownership was not followed, as the relevant decision of the village council was not adopted. The court also noted that the defendant is not a bona fide purchaser, as the head of the Eco-Zemlia Farm was involved in the development of the land management project, indicating his awareness of the violations.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which confirmed the decision of the first instance regarding the reclamation of the land plot in favor of the Zhvanets Village Council.
Case No. 133/1701/19 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Judicial consideration of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court on the closure of criminal proceedings due to the death of the defendant.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The cassation court noted that the appellate court, closing the proceedings due to the defendant’s death, failed to annul the guilty verdict in violation of Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which is a legally significant point. However, the court recognized that the appellate court’s error is not a basis for a new hearing, as this can be rectified by annulling the verdict regarding the conviction, which does not contradict the principle of presumption of innocence.
3. **Court Decision**: The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, annulled the verdict of the Kozyatyn District Court regarding the conviction of the defendant and closed the criminal proceedings due to the defendant’s death.
Case No. 199/9577/19 dated 28/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute**: The case concerns the lawsuit of the Joint-Stock Company “Megabank” against the defendant regarding the removal of obstacles to the use and disposal of an apartment through eviction of the defendant.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court, in considering the case, proceeded from the fact that property rights include the right to possess, use, and dispose of property, and noted that depriving the defendant of the right to use the apartment without providing alternative housing is a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for private life and the right to housing. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the defendant’s possession of alternative housing and did not prove that the apartment was not purchased with his personal funds.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Joint-Stock Company “Megabank,” leaving the decisions of the first and second instances unchanged.
Case No. 674/908/23 dated 28/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is **the recovery of debt** under the loan agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff.
The court was guided by arguments confirming the existence of a loan agreement, through a receipt signed by the defendant, clearly stating the obligation to repay the borrowed $39,000. It was also considered that partial repayment of the debt ($800) does not release the defendant from fulfilling the primary obligation, as he did not provide evidence regarding his objections to the conclusion of the agreement.
The court ruled, leaving unchanged the previous decisions to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the amount of **1,396,920.52 UAH** in debt, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 756/6124/22 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute arose between the Central Affairs Department of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the serviceman regarding the eviction from the premises occupied by the defendant based on a contract.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court, dismissing the claim, pointed out that the disputed premises are the only residence for the defendant and his family, and eviction would violate their right to protected housing, particularly under international norms and the Constitution of Ukraine. The court also considered that the defendant remains on the waiting list for improved housing conditions and is not provided with housing at the new place of service.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, confirming the decisions of the lower instances to deny the claim.
Case No. 592/8227/20 dated 18/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The case concerns the recognition of the fact of joint living as a family, the recognition of property as joint ownership, the recovery of monetary compensation, and the recognition of ownership rights to a part of the apartment between former spouses.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance denied the claim, indicating that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of joint living with the defendant as understood by Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine. The appellate instance also confirmed that to recognize property as joint ownership, it is necessary to prove the existence of joint household management, a common budget, and mutual rights and obligations, which the plaintiff failed to do.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning parts of the decisions of the lower courts, but leaving them unchanged in other respects.
Case No. 943/207/24 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute**: The case was considered regarding a criminal offense committed by the defendant, which resulted in injuries to victims and the recovery of material and moral damages from the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court noted that the lower courts did not take into account the insufficiency of evidence supporting the validity of the civil claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau, as the plaintiffs did not provide the necessary documents to substantiate their treatment expenses. The cassation court emphasized that in the absence of a mandatory insurance policy for the defendant and the lack of evidence of insurance coverage, according to the law, the Motor Insurance Bureau cannot be obligated to reimburse the stated expenses.
**Court Decision**: The court partially granted the cassation appeal, annulling the decisions of the lower courts regarding the civil claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau and ordering a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Case No. 185/5253/14-k dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted defendant against the verdict of the Pavlograd District Court and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court, which provided for the annulment of these decisions and the closure of the criminal case.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court stated that the cassation appeal did not meet the requirements established by the criminal procedure code, in particular, it lacked the signature of the convicted person, specified legal violations, and necessary documents confirming its legitimacy. The court noted that the absence of these elements deprives it of the opportunity to consider the appeal and determine its legality.
3. **Court Decision**: The court denied the request for case retrieval for review of the cassation appeal, as it did not meet the requirements of the legislation.
Case No. 570/6533/23 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute arose in connection with the closure of criminal proceedings against possible criminal actions by officials of the Obaryv Village Council, which, in the opinion of the victim, were committed by entering false information into official documents and destroying his property.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the victim, emphasized that the decisions of the lower courts were made without proper analysis of the arguments of the cassator. The court stated that the pre-trial investigation body did not conduct a comprehensive and impartial investigation, ignoring specific arguments of the victim regarding the possible commission of crimes by officials of the village council. This violation of criminal procedural law was the basis for the annulment of the previous decisions.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the victim, annulled the rulings of the Rivne District Court and the Rivne Appellate Court, and ordered a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Case No. 607/5237/19 dated 24/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defendant against the verdict of the first instance court regarding life imprisonment for committing intentional murders.
The court, considering the case, relied on the fact that the arguments of the defender regarding the lack of evidence of guilt and absence of motives have not been…наголосив на необхідності дотримання прав власності, зазначивши, що будь-які дії, що перешкоджають використанню земель комунальної власності, є неправомірними. Суд також підкреслив, що знищення майна без належних підстав є підставою для відшкодування шкоди.
Суд ухвалив рішення про **усунення перешкод у розпорядженні землями комунальної власності** та **припинення прав власності на знищене майно**, зобов’язавши відповідача відшкодувати заподіяну шкоду.
Справа №200/6305/21 від 28/10/2024
**Предметом спору** є **визнання протиправними** та **скасування податкових повідомлень-рішень**, виданих Головним управлінням ДПС у Донецькій області щодо ТОВ «Бетон нова інтернешнл».
Суд при винесенні рішення керувався аргументами, що **докази**, представлені позивачем, свідчать про **реальність господарських операцій** з контрагентами, а контролюючим органом не було надано **переконливих доводів**, які б спростовували ці факти. Також суд відзначив, що недостатність в контрагентів трудових та виробничих ресурсів не є підставою для визнання господарських операцій фіктивними.
Суд прийняв рішення про **залишення касаційних скарг** без задоволення, а постанову Першого апеляційного адміністративного суду – без змін.**Subject of the dispute**: The focus is on the recognition of the actions related to the non-provision of the status of internally displaced person as unlawful, the obligation to take action, and the recovery of material and moral damages.
2. The main arguments of the court in making its decision were that the Center for Administrative Services of the Kivertsi City Council committed unlawful inaction by failing to ensure proper consideration of the application by PERSON_1, and that there were no grounds for satisfying the claims for the recovery of material damages, as the plaintiff had not acquired the status of internally displaced person. The court also recognized that moral damages incurred by the plaintiff should be compensated, but awarded a smaller amount than requested by the plaintiff.
3. **The court decided** to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, increasing the amount of compensation for moral damages to 16,000 UAH, and changing the distribution of court costs.
Case No. 509/7128/21 dated 16/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the participation of the father, PERSON_1, in the upbringing of the children, particularly regarding the determination of their communication method during martial law in Ukraine.
In making its decision, the court was guided by the principles of equality of parental rights and the best interests of the children, considering the circumstances arising from the martial law and the temporary stay of the children abroad. The court also took into account the time difference between the countries, which affected the specified hours of communication that proved inconvenient for the father.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court, and obliging the respondent to organize communication for the minor children with their father via video call twice a week, taking into account the children’s daily schedule and educational process.
Case No. 9901/469/21 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the unlawful nature and annulment of the Decree of the President of Ukraine** dated June 24, 2021, concerning the imposition of sanctions against the Limited Liability Company “Bilanivskyi Mining and Processing Plant”.
In examining this case, the court was guided by arguments regarding the **legality of the actions of the President of Ukraine** in the context of the imposition of sanctions, as well as adherence to the procedure established by current legislation. The court noted that the decision to impose sanctions was made based on the relevant recommendations of the National Security and Defense Council, which confirms its legality.
As a result, the court ruled to **deny the claim** of the Limited Liability Company “Bilanivskyi Mining and Processing Plant” regarding the annulment of the aforementioned Presidential Decree.
Case No. 580/498/23 dated 29/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: The lawsuit of PERSON_1 against the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Cherkasy region about the recognition of the orders and decisions regarding tax liabilities as unlawful.
**Main arguments of the court**: The court, in making its decision, first pointed out the compliance of the actions of the tax authority with the norms of tax legislation, particularly regarding the adherence to the procedure for conducting inspections and issuing orders. However, it did not adequately consider all the plaintiff’s arguments concerning the violation of their rights, particularly regarding the lack of justification for tax assessments, which led to the denial of the claim.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of previous instances, and sent the case for a new examination to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and objective investigation of the presented evidence.
Case No. 924/298/23 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The recognition of the results of a public procurement and the contract for the supply of electric energy concluded between the municipal enterprise “Khmelnytskyi Regional Dermatovenerological Center” and the Limited Liability Company “Tviiy Hazbut” as invalid.
2. **Main arguments of the court** in making its decision were that the prosecutor chose an ineffective means of protection by not claiming the application of the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, which does not ensure the restoration of the violated rights of the state. Furthermore, the court determined that challenging the results of the procurement is not a proper means of protection since the actual execution of the agreement has already occurred, which makes it impossible to recognize the procurement as invalid.
3. **The court’s decision** was to leave the cassation appeal of the prosecutor without satisfaction, while the decisions of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 380/10927/21 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The legality of the decision of the Borislav City Council regarding the reorganization of the municipal institution “Children and Youth Sports School ‘Atlant'” by merging it with the Borislav Children and Youth Sports School.
2. **The court**, considering the case, relied on the violation of the procedure for making the decision on the reorganization of the institution, particularly on the absence of approval from the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine, which is required by current legislation, as well as the fact that the decision was not discussed with the public, indicating a disregard for the interests of children and the local community. The Supreme Court emphasized that such disputes fall under administrative jurisdiction, not commercial, based on the nature of the legal relations.
3. **The court decided** to satisfy the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, annul the decision of the appellate court, and send the case for further consideration.
Case No. 922/1398/20 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: This case concerns the recognition of the decision of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the privatization of municipal property as illegal, as well as the return of this property to the local community.
**Main arguments of the court**: The court, having considered the case, concluded that the decision of the Kharkiv City Council was made in violation of the legislation, as it was not documented that the tenant made improvements to the property, which is a condition for its purchase. The court also noted that the prosecutor legitimately approached the court as an independent plaintiff since the city council violated the interests of the community, and thus its actions did not comply with the requirements of the legislation.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, annulling the decisions of lower courts regarding the recognition of the illegality of the clause in the annex to the city council’s decision, but left other decisions unchanged, including the recognition of the purchase contract as invalid and the return of the property.
Case No. 640/24484/21 dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The lawsuit of the Limited Liability Company “DTEK Luhansk Thermal Power Plant” against the National Commission with a request to recognize the unlawful inaction of the commission regarding the non-entry of information about licenses into the Licensing Register.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court, confirming the decisions of previous instances, noted that the National Commission did not comply with the legally established deadline for entering information into the register after the court decision, and that the inaction of the regulator is unlawful since the legislation does not provide for discretionary powers to delay such actions.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the National Commission without satisfaction, while the decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 460/16652/23 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute** concerns the recognition of the unlawful inaction of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Rivne region regarding the calculation of the pension for PERSON_1 without including a supplement for over-normative service.
2. The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_1 is entitled to a pension supplement in accordance with part 2 of Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Catastrophe” as amended until October 1, 2017. It noted that the changes made to the law cannot deprive the plaintiff of rights already acquired, as their pension was appointed before the entry into force of the new conditions.
3. **The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine without satisfaction, while the decisions of previous instances remained unchanged.**law but also procedural rights, as it significantly affects the interests of a party that was not part of the proceedings.
The court decided to **recognize the actions of the Kolomyia City Council as unlawful and annul the decision** regarding the refusal to issue a permit for construction works, and obliged the Council to take specific actions in accordance with the law.
Case No. 300/3366/22 dated 28/10/2024істю “Фортуна” на підставі того, що ці угоди були укладені з порушенням законодавства України.
Суд, розглядаючи справу, встановив, що угоди не відповідали вимогам закону, оскільки були укладені без належної документації та не узгоджувалися з правами третіх осіб. Суд також зазначив, що позивач надав достатні докази, які підтверджують факти порушення, що стали підставою для визнання угод недійсними.
В результаті Верховний Суд задовольнив позовні вимоги, визнав угоди купівлі-продажу нерухомого майна недійсними, а також зобов’язав відповідачів повернути позивачу майно.The subject of the dispute is the case “Liga Info”.
The court, analyzing the case, was guided by arguments regarding the **existence of a malicious agreement** between representatives of both parties, which led to the deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to property at an undervalued price, and the insufficient examination of evidence in previous instances, which resulted in **premature conclusions**.
Thus, the court decided to **overturn the previous decisions and remand the case for a new hearing**, ordering the court of first instance to comprehensively assess the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 922/27/24 dated 25/09/2024
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Kharkiv City Council against the Joint Stock Company “Hotel ‘Myr'” for the recovery of debts under the land lease agreement and the termination of this agreement.
In rendering its decision, the court held that the plaintiff (Kharkiv City Council) had grounds to recover the debt, as the defendant systematically paid rent at a rate lower than stipulated in the contract, which constituted a significant breach. However, the appellate court, having reviewed the case, concluded that the defendant had paid the rent in full accordance with the terms of the contract and found no grounds to satisfy the claim.
The court decided to leave unchanged the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Economic Court, which denied the claim of the Kharkiv City Council.
Case No. 921/290/23 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the decision** of the Ternopil City Council as invalid, which terminates the right of permanent use of a land plot by the Administration of the Ternopil Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
The court, in examining the case, was guided by the fact that the **appellate court pointed out the existence of grounds for terminating the right of permanent use of the land plot**, as the plaintiff failed to comply with legislative requirements to align the charter with the norms established by the Law of Ukraine “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations.” The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of a violated right to land due to the loss of the status of a religious organization.
The court decided to **leave the plaintiff’s cassation appeal ungranted**, and the ruling of the Western Appellate Economic Court dated 22.05.2024 was left unchanged.
Case No. 918/83/24 dated 21/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **reclamation of a land plot** from the possession of INDIVIDUAL_1 in favor of the Zdolbuniv City Council.
In its decision, the court noted that INDIVIDUAL_1 did not fulfill the conditions for correcting the deficiencies in the cassation appeal within the specified time frame, which led to its return. The cassation court also noted that the arguments of the appellant regarding the lack of valid reasons for missing the deadline for the appeal were not supported by adequate evidence, and were neither objective nor insurmountable.
The court left **the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 ungranted** and upheld the ruling of the appellate court, confirming the correctness of the actions of the previous instances.
Case No. 1309/4455/12 dated 28/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the obligation to dismantle an unauthorized extension built on a land plot not owned by the defendants, in a case brought by the Railway District Administration of the Lviv City Council.
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the following main arguments: first, it was established that the defendants built the extension without the necessary permits on a land plot that is municipal property; second, the courts determined that the legislation grants local self-government executive bodies the authority to initiate the dismantling of unauthorized construction to ensure the improvement of populated areas.
The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal ungranted, and the decisions of the Lviv District Administrative Court and the ruling of the Eighth Appellate Administrative Court were left unchanged, obliging the defendants to dismantle the unauthorized extension.
Case No. 240/12039/23 dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute arose in connection with the cassation appeal of the State Geological and Subsoil Service of Ukraine against the decisions of the first and appellate instances regarding the annulment of the order to suspend the action of the special permit for subsoil use issued to the Limited Liability Company “Mezhyrychensky Mining and Processing Plant.”
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court noted that the contested order was issued based on a decree of the President of Ukraine concerning sanctions against the ultimate beneficial owner of the plaintiff. The court established that the plaintiff failed to comply with the 30-day deadline for the possibility of changing the beneficial owner, which became the basis for overturning the previous judicial decisions, as the defendant acted within the powers granted to it under the legislation.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the State Geological and Subsoil Service of Ukraine, annulled the decisions of the previous instances, and denied the claim of LLC “Mezhyrychensky Mining and Processing Plant” to recognize the order as unlawful.
Case No. 990/271/24 dated 28/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to recognize its inaction as unlawful and to oblige it to take action regarding the consideration of his complaint.
2. **Main arguments of the court** were that the HQCJ undertook a series of actions related to the consideration of the plaintiff’s complaint, such as conducting personal receptions and bringing issues before a plenary session, which indicates that it was active. The court noted that the inaction of a subject of public authority could only be considered unlawful if the absence of actions on its part violates the rights of a person in public legal relations, which was not the case here.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court denied the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1 against the HQCJ regarding the recognition of its inaction as unlawful.
Case No. 908/1672/23 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of the Communal Enterprise “Hradproekt” regarding the dismantling of signs belonging to the individual entrepreneur Beladze Mirza Yuriyovych as unlawful and the obligation of this enterprise to restore the signs to their previous locations.
In its decision, the court was guided by arguments that previous courts in the case noted that the Communal Enterprise “Hradproekt,” acting under the instructions of the Department, operated within its powers and therefore could not be considered a violator of the plaintiff’s rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, as the Communal Enterprise “Hradproekt” not only acted on instructions but also was not recognized as an improper defendant in similar cases.
As a result, the court annulled the ruling of the Central Appellate Economic Court, leaving the decision of the first instance court in force, which obligated the Communal Enterprise “Hradproekt” to restore the signs at their previous location at its own expense.
Case No. 916/1719/22 dated 12/09/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerned the recognition of the contract for the biological treatment of the “Tupikov” channel as invalid and the obligation of LLC “Dunayagroservis” to vacate the specified artificial water body.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, analyzing the case, concluded that the disputed contract is a fictitious transaction concluded to conceal the real relations regarding the use of the land plot with the water object. The court noted that the Kiliya MUVG, which concluded the contract, does not have the authority to enter into such an agreement, as it is merely a permanent user of the land and cannot transfer it for use to other persons.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the prosecution, annulled the decisions of the previous instances, recognized the contract as invalid, and obliged LLC “Dunayagroservis” to vacate the artificial water body.
Case No. 922/3953/21 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **annulment of the order**, **recognition of the contract as invalid**, and **return of the land plot** in the case between the “Facelia 2017” Farm, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the State GeoCadastre.
The court was guided by the fact that the **right to receive legal assistance** during judicial proceedings is guaranteed, and also considered the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which regulate **the reimbursement of court costs**. The court emphasized that the costs for professional legal assistance must be justified, real, and proportionate to the complexity of the case.
The court made a decision to **grant the application of the “Facelia 2017” Farm** for an additional decision and recover…ької міської ради про затвердження документації з землеустрою, що стосується надання земельної ділянки у власність.
**Основні аргументи суду:** Суд зазначив, що рішення міської ради про затвердження документації з землеустрою було прийнято з дотриманням вимог законодавства, а також враховуючи інтереси громади. Суд апеляційної інстанції підкреслив, що відсутність заперечень з боку інших зацікавлених осіб не є підставою для визнання рішення недійсним. Крім того, суд також зазначив, що процедура надання землі у власність була проведена відповідно до норм земельного законодавства.
**Рішення суду:** Верховний Суд залишив без задоволення касаційну скаргу та підтвердив законність рішень попередніх інстанцій, визнаних правомірними.**Subject of the dispute:** The claim by the individual against the Kherson Regional Pension Fund regarding the legality of actions concerning the calculation of monthly lifelong monetary maintenance for a retired judge and the obligation to recalculate this maintenance.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court considered that the individual has a total work experience of over 36 years, which entitles him to receive lifelong monetary maintenance at a rate of 90% of the judge’s remuneration. However, the Supreme Court, reviewing the case, noted that according to the legislation, the maintenance amount should be 82%, as the law stipulates that for each full year of service beyond 20 years, 2% is added to the base percentage.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the amount of the monthly lifelong monetary maintenance for the individual to 82% considering his work experience.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the recognition of the inactivity of the State Institution “Probation Center” as unlawful and the obligation to calculate and pay the claimant (individual) additional remuneration according to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168 for the period from 24.02.2022 to 18.10.2022.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court concluded that Resolution No. 168 provided the right to receive additional remuneration and indicated that from 11.03.2022 to 17.10.2022, the individual was entitled to such remuneration since he held a position in the institution that fell under the conditions of this resolution. The court also noted that the inactivity of the respondent regarding the non-calculation of remuneration is unlawful, as the absence of orders is not a valid reason for denying its payment.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first and appellate courts, which partially satisfied the claimant’s lawsuit for the calculation of additional remuneration for the specified period.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The case involves an administrative lawsuit by the Joint Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” against the Northern Interregional Office of the State Tax Service regarding the recognition of the tax notification-decision as unlawful and its cancellation regarding the possibility of timely fulfillment of tax obligations.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, reviewing the decision, confirmed that the claimant, JSC “Kharkivoblenergo,” could not fulfill its tax obligations due to the circumstances of martial law, specifically due to the blockade and occupation of the territories where its subdivisions are located. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not assess the grounds for the claimant’s appeal and failed to duly perform its duties in the process of considering the application regarding the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Second Appellate Administrative Court, which canceled the decision of the tax authority and obliged it to reconsider the application of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo.”
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The subject of this case is the claimant’s demands for the imposition of a penalty on the respondent, calculated by the claimant, in connection with the non-fulfillment of the delivery of goods under the contract.
The court, reviewing the case, concluded that there were grounds for imposing a penalty since the respondent did not fulfill the obligation to supply sunflower seeds. However, the court also took into account the circumstances that influenced the degree of guilt of the respondent, which became the basis for reducing the penalty by 50%.
The court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties, confirming the legality of the decision of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court, which partially satisfied the claim, imposing a penalty on the respondent in the amount of UAH 1,107,468.00.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the cancellation of the decision on state registration of private property rights of LLC “Vikont” on real estate, as well as the removal of obstacles to the use of state property.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, reviewing the cassation appeals, emphasized that the registration of property rights for LLC “Vikont” did not correspond to the dispositive part of previous court decisions, which indicated shares in the joint ownership of the state. The court also pointed out that the request for the removal of obstacles to property use is not an appropriate means of protection, as at the time of considering the claim, the property rights were registered for LLC “Vikont.”
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, canceling the decision of the appellate court regarding the cancellation of the registrar’s decision and upheld the decision of the first instance court regarding the cancellation of the registration of private property rights for LLC “Vikont.”
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The claim is for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
**Main arguments of the court:** The court noted that there are legal grounds for recovering from the respondent the debt amount under the loan agreement in the hryvnia equivalent, as well as interest for the use of funds considering inflation. At the same time, the appellate court confirmed that the decision of the first instance court did not exceed the limits of the claims and was made in accordance with the norms of legislation.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, canceled the decision of the appellate court and remitted the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of inactivity** of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Kharkiv region and the State Tax Service of Ukraine as unlawful, as well as the obligation to take actions regarding the return of budget reimbursement in the amount of **20,541,666.66 UAH**.
The court, in making its decision, was guided by the fact that the controlling bodies did not execute court decisions that had entered into legal force, in particular, did not register the application of the Society in the Register of applications for the return of budget reimbursement. The court also noted that the absence of actions by the respondents effectively deprived the claimant of the opportunity to exercise his right to budget reimbursement, but pointed to the problem of executing previous decisions, which could be grounds for a new review of the case.
The court decided to **cancel** the decisions of the previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, indicating the need for a more detailed clarification of the case circumstances.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the **recovery of debt** from the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of the Limited Liability Company “San-Energy Ukraine.”
The court, while making its decision, was guided by arguments regarding the **insufficiency of grounds for recovery** of penalties and fines from the respondent, as the claimant did not provide adequate evidence to substantiate its claims. Moreover, the court emphasized the importance of complying with the legislative norms regulating financial obligations between the parties.
The court ruled to **satisfy the cassation appeal** of the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” and to cancel the decision of the appellate court in part regarding the recovery of debt.
—
**Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the dispute is the **legitimacy of the refusal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine** in the Zhytomyr region to recalculate the pension for the individual according to the legislation regulating social protection for individuals affected by the Chernobyl disaster.
The court was guided by the fact that **the claimant has the right to a pension recalculation**, as according to paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster.”1. “A person who has worked for at least 15 years is entitled to an increase in their pension by 1% for each year of service beyond 15 years. The court also noted that changes in legislation regarding the conditions for recalculation cannot restrict the already acquired rights of individuals receiving pensions under this law.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and confirmed the legality of the appellate court’s decision obligating the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine to recalculate the pension of INDIVIDUAL_1.
Case No. 520/9375/22 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the inaction of the State Tax Service of Ukraine and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv Region as unlawful due to the failure to enter the application of LLC “Trading House “Agrosvit” for the return of budget reimbursement amounts into the Register of Applications for the Return of Budget Reimbursement Amounts, as well as the recovery from the budget of the amount of UAH 20.5 million.
The court, analyzing the circumstances of the case, based its decision on the fact that due to the inaction of the tax authorities, which did not execute court decisions that had entered into legal force, the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to budget reimbursement, as confirmed by previous court decisions. The court also pointed out that the controlling authority did not take into account the legal consequences related to the annulment of the plaintiff’s taxpayer registration, which was declared unlawful.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeals and annulled the decisions of the previous instances, sending the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 9901/524/21 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **inaction of the President of Ukraine** regarding the failure to issue a decree for the appointment of INDIVIDUAL_1 to the position of a judge of the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv.
The court, in considering the case, was guided by the arguments that **the appointment of judges is an obligation of the President**, established by legislation, and that inaction in this area is **unlawful**. The court also noted that the submission from the High Council of Justice dated June 18, 2021, already contained all necessary documents for making a decision.
As a result, the court **partially satisfied the claim**, recognizing the inaction of the President of Ukraine as unlawful and obliging him to consider the submission from the High Council of Justice.
Case No. 922/376/18 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Joint Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” against the Municipal Enterprise “Kharkivvodokanal” for the recovery of the amount of UAH 4,196,577.22.
The court, in considering the case, was guided by the principles of fairness and legality, taking into account the circumstances of the case and previous court decisions confirming the legitimacy of the plaintiff’s claims. Particularly important was the clear argumentation regarding the failure of the defendant to fulfill obligations, which became the basis for the recovery of the specified amount.
By the court’s decision, the cassation appeal of the Municipal Enterprise “Kharkivvodokanal” was dismissed, and the decision of the Eastern Appellate Economic Court was left unchanged.
Case No. 905/1263/23 dated 25/09/2024
1. **The subject of the dispute** is the obligation of the individual entrepreneur Dримайловець Volodymyr Valeriyovych to fulfill the terms of the supply contract for parts and equipment for vehicles, concluded with the Kramatorsk Higher Vocational School.
2. **The main arguments of the court** in making the decision are that the prosecutor, acting in the interests of the state, had no right to demand the fulfillment of obligations in favor of a third party that does not assert independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute. The courts of previous instances also did not properly examine the gathered evidence and did not establish the factual circumstances that were significant for the correct resolution of the case, which led to a violation of procedural law norms.
3. **The court’s decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the previous court decisions, and transferred the case for a new review to the court of first instance.”
