[Case No. 240/15899/20 dated 28/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122668685)
**The courts established** that documents confirming the violation of rights were not attached, and that the **Ministry of Justice should have denied** the complaint based on points 1 and 7 of part eight of Article 34 of Law No. 755.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court **dismissed the cassation appeal** of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and **upheld the decision**.
[Case No. 580/10326/23 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717111)
**Dispute over the calculation and payment of indexation of monetary allowance for serviceman PERSON_1 for a specified period, including the issue of the correct base month for indexation calculation.**
Main arguments of the court: The courts of first and appellate instances recognized that the base month for indexation calculation for the period from January 1, 2015, to February 28, 2018, should have been **January 2008**, based on the fact that the last salary increase occurred in that month. The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts did not consider changes in legal regulation after December 1, 2015, which led to the wrongful application of January 2008 as the base month for the entire disputed period without separate analysis of each sub-period.
Court Decision: **The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a detailed establishment of the circumstances of the case.**
[Case No. 201/4544/22 dated 30/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717368)
The subject of the dispute involves the consideration of cassation appeals by the defenders of the convicted PERSON_8 against the verdict of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court.
The main arguments used by the court include **confirmation of the legality** of previous court decisions, as no new circumstances that could affect the decision were presented by the defenders. The court also noted that their arguments did not contain grounds for changing the verdict or ruling.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the verdict of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defenders were dismissed.
[Case No. 676/3722/20 dated 30/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717361)
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of the defender of the convicted against the verdict of the Kamianets-Podilskyi District Court of Khmelnytskyi region and the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court regarding his conviction for a criminal offense under part 4 of Article 153 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation appeal, decided to uphold the decisions of the previous instances. The court likely considered that all procedural norms were observed in the previous decisions and no grounds for their change or annulment were found.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict and ruling unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender was dismissed.
[Case No. 461/3328/23 dated 29/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717488)
**Subject of the dispute:** Appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the imposition of punishment for a criminal offense.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation appeal of the defender of the convicted, decided to partially satisfy this appeal. Guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, particularly Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code, the court decided to reduce the main punishment for the convicted under part 3 of Article 305 of the Criminal Code to 7 years of imprisonment. This decision was based on the analysis of the circumstances of the case and existing legal norms.
**Court Decision:** The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, changing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, reducing the punishment, while leaving other parts of the court decisions unchanged.
[Case No. 333/400/21 dated 23/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717266)
The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the decision of the Zaporizhzhia City Council to transfer land ownership as illegal and its annulment, as well as the invalidation of the purchase agreement for this land plot.
The main arguments used by the Supreme Court were that the claims made by the plaintiff did not protect his rights as a property owner to obtain land use rights. The court emphasized that the principle of the unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it implies the transfer of land rights according to the shares of ownership of the building, but the chosen method of protection by the plaintiff does not ensure the restoration of violated rights. It was also considered that the claim did not contain demands to the person who owns the disputed land plot regarding the recognition of ownership rights.
The Supreme Court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal of PERSON_2, annul the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and deny the claim of PERSON_1.
[Case No. 990/228/23 dated 24/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717500)
**Appeal against the decree of the President of Ukraine** on the application of sanctions against PERSON_1. The parties in the case were **PERSON_1**, who contested the legality of the sanctions applied to him, and **President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky**, who defended the legality of his decree.
The court of first instance left the claim without consideration due to the repeated absence of the plaintiff or his representative at court hearings. However, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff did not intend to delay the process and wished to defend his rights in court. The plaintiff’s representative submitted applications for the case to be considered without their participation but later requested to postpone the hearing to familiarize themselves with the case materials, which contained **classified information**. The court recognized that the plaintiff did not have an objective opportunity to familiarize himself with the materials due to **martial law** and other valid reasons.
The Grand Chamber annulled the ruling of the court of first instance and remanded the case for a new trial. Thus, the court supported PERSON_1’s right to a **fair trial**.
[Case No. 300/3345/24 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717132)
1. **The Supreme Court** noted that procedural law does not contain requirements regarding the form of an appeal, except that it must be in written form, and that the content of the appeal must be readable with some effort.
2. **The Court** refers to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes the inadmissibility of excessive formalism that may limit the right of access to court.
[Case No. 908/314/18 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122729736)
**Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns **reimbursement of legal costs** for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” during the consideration of the case regarding the inaction of a state executor.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court emphasized the **principle of reimbursement of legal costs**, which stipulates that the party in whose favor the decision is made is entitled to reimbursement of the costs incurred. The court reminded that the costs for legal assistance must be **proportionate to the amount of work performed** by the lawyer and are determined by the contract, taking into account the complexity of the case. The court found that the costs claimed by LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” in the amount of 4,550 UAH are **proportionate and justified**, as they meet the criteria of reasonableness and necessity and were confirmed by relevant documents.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the application of LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” and ordered **the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to pay 4,550 UAH** to this company as reimbursement for legal assistance costs.
[Case No. 920/1393/23 dated 22/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122729717)
The subject of the dispute in this case concerns the property claims of the Joint Stock Company “Agrarian Fund” against the Limited Liability Company “Torgtop” in a bankruptcy case.
The main arguments on which the court based its decision were that **JSC “Agrarian Fund” had already satisfied its claims through foreclosure on mortgage and pledge items,** as confirmed by documents on the sale of property. The court established that **LLC “Torgtop” acted only as a property guarantor, not a joint debtor,** and was liable only within the value of the pledge/mortgage. After the sale of the pledged property, the obligations of LLC “Torgtop” to JSC “Agrarian Fund” were exhausted.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of JSC “Agrarian Fund” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
[Case No. 464/2040/23 dated 23/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122717151)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Deprivation of PERSON_2 of parental rights regarding the daughter PERSON_4 on the grounds of evasion of parental duties.уду**: The Supreme Court considered that **deprivation of parental rights** is an extreme measure and can only be applied in the presence of **culpable behavior** and the impossibility of changing such behavior for the better. The **Court of Appeal** found that the evidence was insufficient for the deprivation of parental rights, taking into account the respondent’s desire to participate in the upbringing of the daughter, and that the arrears in alimony payments are not an unconditional basis for such a decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal but warned the respondent about the need to **change the attitude** towards their duties.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, left the decision of the Court of Appeal unchanged, **adding a warning** to INDIVIDUAL_2 about the need to change the attitude towards fulfilling parental duties.
Case No. 339/529/23 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute**: Reinstatement at work and conclusion of an indefinite employment contract with a teacher dismissed due to the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court pointed out the **incorrect actions of the Court of Appeal**, which did not verify the date of receipt of the decision copy through the Electronic Cabinet, leading to **premature renewal of the term for appeal**. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to procedures regarding the delivery of court decisions through the Unified State Register of Court Decisions and noted that the Court of Appeal did not take into account the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms set out in previous Supreme Court rulings.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court **partially satisfied the cassation appeal**, annulled the ruling and decision of the Court of Appeal, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance, starting from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 380/27836/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Appeal by the military unit against the decision of the court of first instance recognizing its inaction regarding the calculation and payment of monetary assistance to the plaintiff as unlawful.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized the absence of valid reasons for renewing the term for appeal, which must be confirmed by appropriate evidence. The military unit did not submit an application for the renewal of the term for appeal, as required by the appellate court, which was the basis for the refusal to open appellate proceedings. The court also reminded that the decision of the court of first instance cannot be subject to cassation review if it has not been reviewed in the appellate procedure.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the **cassation appeal unsatisfied**, and the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings – **unchanged**.
Case No. 903/64/22 (903/266/22) dated 29/10/2024
proportionate, justified, and commensurate with the complexity of the case and the work performed by the lawyer. The court also emphasized that reduction of costs is possible if they are disproportionate.
Case No. 905/825/24 dated 30/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Recovery of debt under a sublease agreement and securing the claim by seizing the property and funds of the respondent.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court considered the issue of the justification for seizing the property and funds of the individual entrepreneur Saiko Andriy Oleksandrovych, noting that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the principles of commercial litigation and claim security, taking into account the risks of complicating the execution of the court decision without seizure, making the measures to secure the claim adequate and proportionate. The court also indicated that the justification of the claims within the framework of securing the claim is not examined, as this is the subject of the main case review.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the Commercial Court of Donetsk Region and the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged, confirming the legality of the seizure of the respondent’s property and funds.
Case No. 824/59/24 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute concerns the demand of LLC “Comfort-Town Realty” for the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision on the recovery of debt under a lease agreement from INDIVIDUAL_1.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court refused to issue a writ of execution on the grounds that the case is not subject to arbitration court jurisdiction, as the dispute concerns **real estate** – the recovery of rent and utility payments, and such cases are excluded from the competence of arbitration courts according to the law. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Kyiv Court of Appeal correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, considering that exclusive jurisdiction extends to disputes regarding rights and obligations related to real estate.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left the appeal of LLC “Comfort-Town Realty” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated June 17, 2024, unchanged.
Case No. 742/2515/20 dated 31/10/2024
The Supreme Court considered that the appellate court had the duty to explain to the accused their right to exemption from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but failed to do so. The prosecutor and defense counsel indicated that the provisions regarding exemption from serving a sentence were mistakenly applied instead of closing the proceedings. The Supreme Court emphasized that such actions are a significant violation of the criminal procedural law, as the convicted agreed to exemption from liability, not just from punishment.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court annulled the verdict and ruling of the previous courts.
Case No. 189/2310/23 dated 31/10/2024
Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court
Case No. 581/254/21 dated 22/10/2024
The cassation court noted that the appellate court did not properly examine the prosecutor’s arguments, did not investigate all the evidence in the case, and unreasonably refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s motion for a re-examination of the evidence. Moreover, the appellate court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses indicating the organized illegal logging by INDIVIDUAL_6, which became the basis for the annulment of the appellate court’s decision.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, annulled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 229/207/24 dated 30/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal in the criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of INDIVIDUAL_7 in committing criminal offenses.
The court refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s motion to transfer the case for consideration by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, arguing the need to consider the appeal by the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court. This decision was made based on part 2 of Article 434-1 and Article 434-2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate procedural issues of cassation proceedings.
The court decided to transfer the proceedings on the prosecutor’s cassation appeal for consideration by the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court, and this decision is final and not subject to appeal.
Case No. 473/3092/21 dated 29/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Appeal by the defense counsel against the appellate court’s decision convicting INDIVIDUAL_7 for illegal cultivation and growing of cannabis, as well as illegal storage of narcotic substances without the intent to sell.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court established that the courts of first and appellate instances complied with the law’s requirements when evaluating the evidence, based on which INDIVIDUAL_7’s guilt was confirmed. The defense counsel’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence were rejected, as the court recognized them as relevant and admissible, based on witness testimonies and search materials conducted according to procedural requirements. In particular, the court concluded that the search protocol and expert conclusions are legal and admissible evidence.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel of INDIVIDUAL_6 unsatisfied, confirming the legality and validity of the first instance court’s verdict.
Case No. 340/7812/23 dated 31/10/2024
The Supreme Court considered the issue of compliance with the term for appeal and the correctness of the refusal to open appellate proceedings. The court noted that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment.in the application for the renewal of the term for appeal, which led to a violation of the right to appellate review—an important principle of justice.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for further consideration.
Case No. 705/279/21 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Recovery of real estate from unlawful possession.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court established that the plaintiff, PERSON_1, is the lawful owner of the disputed residential building based on a purchase agreement registered in 2006. He did not intend to alienate the property, which left his possession against his will through public auctions conducted in enforcement proceedings where the debtor was not him but PERSON_3. The **bona fide purchaser** PERSON_2 could have known about the violation of the property sale procedure, as the state register contained information about an arrest imposed on other property, but not on the disputed object.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to recover the property in favor of PERSON_1, denying the cassation appeal of PERSON_2’s representative.
Case No. 10/2180 dated 23/10/2024
The Court noted that the State Property Fund was authorized for such actions despite the enterprise’s bankruptcy status. Reference was also made to previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding similar privatization situations.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal.
Case No. 752/6166/17 dated 29/10/2024
### Subject of Dispute:
The dispute concerns the **allocation of court costs** in the case of the liquidator of JSC “Kyivguma” against several defendants, particularly regarding the recognition of decisions as unlawful and their annulment.
### Main Arguments of the Supreme Court:
The court considered **PERSON_2’s motion** for an additional court decision regarding the allocation of court costs. The Supreme Court **partially satisfied the cassation appeal**, annulling previous decisions and leaving the claim without consideration, which formed the basis for the allocation of costs. According to the norms of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the court decided that **the costs for filing the cassation appeal** should be equally divided between JSC “Kyivguma” and the appellant PERSON_1.
### Court Decision:
The court granted PERSON_2’s motion, ordering **the equal recovery of court costs** in the amount of 1514 UAH from JSC “Kyivguma” and PERSON_1 in favor of PERSON_2, which is final and not subject to appeal.
Case No. 870/7/24 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the mortgage initiated by LLC “Pyatydni” based on the decision of the arbitration court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals, particularly against the decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal to issue an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision. The main arguments of the court were that the arbitration court’s decision regarding vehicles, which were the subject of invalid contracts, cannot be enforced as it contradicts the principles of bankruptcy, particularly due to bilateral restitution. The court also considered that the arbitration court decided on the rights and obligations of persons who were not parties to the case, which is grounds for refusing to issue an order.
The court decided to dismiss the appeal of the Private Enterprise “Farm Household “Zakhidny Bug” and partially satisfy the appeal of the Law Office “Gaponenko Roman and Partners,” amending the appellate court’s decisions and issuing an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision, excluding movable property subject to restitution.
Case No. 607/9210/22 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case concerns the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the decision of the Ternopil Court of Appeal regarding the accusation of PERSON_7 in committing a criminal misdemeanor under Part 1 of Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The main arguments of the court are that it decided to leave the decision of the appellate court unchanged, indicating the absence of errors in the decision of the lower court or the unreasonableness of the prosecutor’s arguments. The Supreme Court, guided by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, recognized the prosecutor’s cassation appeal as not subject to satisfaction.
The court decided to leave the decision of the Ternopil Court of Appeal unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, making this decision final and not subject to appeal.
Case No. 917/53/21 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the results of the state procurement and the contract between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and LLC “Tekhnobud-Ukraine” as invalid.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the previous instances, thereby supporting the legality of the state procurement process and the concluded contract. The court, guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code, indicated the absence of grounds for recognizing the procurement results and the contract as invalid, as the process was conducted in accordance with the law.
Court Decision:
Case No. 757/51060/18-c dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute concerned the foreclosure on the mortgage—a four-room apartment under credit obligations concluded between LLC “Verdict Capital” and PERSON_1, considering that the apartment was previously sold at public auction to PERSON_2.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The appellate court noted the **legitimacy of PERSON_2 acquiring ownership of the disputed apartment**, stating that at the time of registration of ownership by PERSON_2, the apartment was not encumbered by a mortgage. Furthermore, the court emphasized that **a mortgage should be recorded only on property owned by the mortgagor**, which was not adhered to in this case, as PERSON_1 was not the owner of the apartment at the time of the mortgage agreement.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate instance, denying LLC “Verdict Capital” the claim for foreclosure on the mortgage, thereby confirming PERSON_2’s ownership of the apartment.
Case No. 363/4065/21 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Resolution of the issue of terminating obligations under a credit agreement and forgiving the debt between PERSON_1 and LLC “FC Finline,” which acquired the claim rights from JSC “Delta Bank.”
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court noted that the additional agreement with JSC “Delta Bank” provided for the forgiveness of part of the debt upon fulfilling all the terms of the agreement. However, considering the introduction of temporary administration in “Delta Bank” before these conditions were met, the provision for debt forgiveness was deemed null and void according to the Law of Ukraine on the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals. This means that the obligation to forgive the debt did not transfer to the new creditor, LLC “FC Finline.”
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left PERSON_1’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and confirmed the appellate court’s decision to deny the claim.
Case No. 560/13992/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: A military unit challenges the recognition of its inaction as unlawful and the obligation to pay compensation for the delay in salary indexation payment.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court noted that the military unit did not provide adequate evidence of objective reasons for missing the deadline for appeal, as budget financing issues are not grounds for renewing the procedural term. The court also emphasized that the failure to comply with the court fee payment procedure is not an objective obstacle to appeal.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open appellate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 753/15597/20 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Recognition of the assignment agreement between JSC “OTP Bank” and LLC “FC ASAP” as invalid, concluded in connection with the presence of a consumer loan with PERSON_1.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions that the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Collection of Property of Citizens of Ukraine Provided as Security for Loans in Foreign Currency” does not apply to PERSON_1, as she is the founder and manager of a private enterprise, making her a subject of the Law.The Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption.” The court also noted that the assignment agreement does not violate the law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute its conclusions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming the refusal to declare the contract invalid.
Case No. 953/510/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute was the **recognition of the executive notary’s writ** as unenforceable, executed by a private notary at the request of JSC “Sense Bank” regarding the collection of debt under a loan agreement.
The court established that the **private notary did not comply with the requirements** of the current legislation, particularly failing to confirm the **undisputed nature of the debt** and **violating the procedure for notifying** the debtor about the demand to remedy violations. Furthermore, the bank **lost the right to accrue interest** after changing the term of the obligation, which also indicates the absence of undisputed debt.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Sense Bank” **without satisfaction**, and the decisions of the lower courts remained **unchanged**, confirming the notary’s non-compliance with legislative requirements and the absence of undisputed debt.
Case No. 361/4270/19 dated 23/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: **Recognition of the actions of the state registrar regarding the state registration of ownership of an apartment as unlawful and cancellation of the corresponding decision.**
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the **state registration of ownership of real estate was carried out with violations**, particularly without submitting an appraisal report of the mortgage subject, which is a significant circumstance for such registration. Additionally, **the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage”** were not complied with, which requires an appraisal of the mortgage value at the time of its acquisition.
Court decision: **The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Sense Bank” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged**, confirming the illegality of the state registrar’s actions.
Case No. 727/9065/22 dated 16/10/2024
**1. Subject of the dispute:** Division of joint property of spouses after divorce, particularly the distribution of movable property and funds.
**2. Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court reviewed the correctness of the application of legal norms by the lower courts. **The court of first instance** partially satisfied the claim, recognizing part of the property as joint ownership and awarding monetary compensation from one of the spouses, but denied the claims regarding part of the property due to lack of evidence. **The appellate court** partially reviewed the decision, considering new evidence (a video recording of a conversation) regarding the funds, but the Supreme Court found that this evidence did not confirm the use of funds not in the interest of the family and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part. The Supreme Court also amended the distribution of court costs, awarding court costs to the defendant proportionally to the satisfied claims of the cassation appeal.
**3. Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the appellate court’s decision regarding the division of funds amounting to USD 30,000, upheld the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and changed the distribution of court costs.
Case No. 914/127/20 dated 31/10/2024
upheld the decision of the Western Appellate Commercial Court, indicating that the lower courts properly established the circumstances of the case and provided the correct legal assessment. The key point is that the court adhered to the norms of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, particularly articles 300, 308, 309, 315, 317, which regulate the procedure for reviewing cassation appeals and confirm the legality of the lower courts’ decision.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “ProCredit Bank” without satisfaction
Case No. 924/1708/14 dated 15/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of an individual, PERSON_1, against the decisions of the lower courts regarding the approval of the liquidator’s report and the closure of bankruptcy proceedings of the Private Enterprise “Sergo-Trans.”
Main arguments of the court: The court was guided by the fact that the liquidator of the Debtor took all possible measures to identify and realize the Debtor’s assets, form the liquidation mass, and satisfy creditors’ claims as provided by law. No violations by the liquidator that could affect the formation of the liquidation mass were found. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm improper performance of the liquidator’s duties.
Court decision:
Case No. 396/12/21 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Cancellation of the state registration of the emphyteusis agreement on a land plot, concluded between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2, and the return of the land plot.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court determined that the emphyteusis agreement was concluded by mutual consent of the parties, confirming their expression of will, and is therefore valid. Additionally, the lower courts established the absence of violation of PERSON_1’s rights, as all documents submitted for registration complied with legislative requirements, and no discrepancies or missing documents were found. The court also found no grounds for canceling the decision, as no violations of substantive or procedural law were identified.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
This decision of the Supreme Court is final and not subject to appeal, emphasizing its legal completeness and the correctness of the lower courts’ actions.
Case No. 757/12061/21-c dated 30/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerns the protection of intellectual property rights to the trademark “INFORMATION_3,” which, according to the plaintiff, was unlawfully used by the defendant in a domain name and on websites.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court of first instance denied the claim due to the lack of proof and substantiation of the claims, as the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence of rights violation. The appellate court upheld this decision, but the Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not properly evaluate the expert conclusions on which the plaintiff based their claims, contrary to the requirements of relevance, admissibility, and reliability of evidence.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “Farby Koloryt,” annulled the appellate court’s decision, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full and comprehensive examination of the case circumstances.
Case No. 910/10936/23 (910/16040/23) dated 29/10/2024
recognized a violation of the principle of access to justice, as the court of first instance did not properly assess the circumstances of the plaintiff’s financial situation, leading to the unjustified return of his claim. The court noted that the issues of deferral, installment, or exemption from court fees are discretionary powers of the court, but these decisions must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and circumstances of the case. Additionally, it was emphasized that in discussing such issues, courts should consider the practice of the ECHR, which requires ensuring real and effective access to court.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal
Case No. 369/12821/21 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Removal of PERSON_2 from the right to inherit by law after the death of her husband, PERSON_3.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court concluded that the previous courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, as it was not proven that PERSON_2 evaded providing assistance to the testator in a helpless state. The court emphasized the absence of evidence confirming the defendant’s evasion of the duty to care for PERSON_3, as well as the absence of medical documents confirming the testator’s helpless state.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision, denying the claim of PERSON_1 to remove PERSON_2 from the right to inherit.
Case No. 580/1569/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** PERSON_1 challenges the inaction of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Cherkasy region regarding the failure to inform about the results of the consideration of his appeal and demands the court to recognize this inaction as unlawful.of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the first instance court, recognizing the contract of sale of the land plot as invalid and canceling the corresponding state registration.at the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to declare the purchase and sale agreement invalid and cancel the state registration.
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The cassation appeal of the victim’s representative is being considered against the court’s decision to close the criminal proceedings on the fact of a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the failure to identify the perpetrator and the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance closed the proceedings because the **statute of limitations** for bringing to criminal responsibility under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code, which is a criminal misdemeanor, is two years, and these terms have already expired. The court also noted that during the pre-trial investigation, it was not possible to identify the person who committed the offense. The cassation court confirmed that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are **legal, justified, and comply with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code**, as there are no grounds for recognizing a significant violation of the criminal procedural law.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to close the criminal proceedings.
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the invalidation of additional agreements to the electricity supply contract and the recovery of funds paid under these agreements.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor did not designate the university as a co-defendant in the case, although it was a party to the transactions being contested, which is necessary for the proper consideration of such cases. The absence of the proper subject composition of the case participants, i.e., the failure to involve all parties to the contested transactions as defendants, led to the conclusion that the claims could not be satisfied.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the previous decisions regarding the satisfaction of the claim to invalidate the additional agreements and recover funds, denying these claims.
1. The subject of the dispute concerns **the recovery of debt** in the amount of UAH 146,437.31 under the claim of Individual Entrepreneur Sidorенко Olena Volodymyrivna against LLC “Talan Systems,” as well as a counterclaim by LLC “Talan Systems” for **declaring the contract invalid**.
2. The main arguments of the court were the lack of justified grounds for reviewing the decisions of the lower courts, as well as the impracticality of cassation appeal, since the grounds provided by law for such an appeal were not proven. The court indicated that the **decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv** and the **ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal** were made based on the proper application of legal norms.
3. The court decided to **close the cassation proceedings** and leave the decision of the Commercial Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged; this decision is final and not subject to appeal.
**established that PERSON_2 and PERSON_3** cannot be recognized as having unlawfully occupied the residential premises, as they were registered in the apartment as family members of the owner. The court considered that **the long-term residence** of the defendants in the apartment and the absence of other housing create a protected right for them to use this housing, and that **eviction** would be a disproportionate interference with their right to housing, which is protected by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the previous decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and **denied the satisfaction**.
**Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the extension of the lease of a land plot by LLC “Promin Podillya” based on an additional agreement, which, according to the plaintiff, was forged.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court of first instance, whose conclusions were agreed upon by the appellate court, noted that both parties actually fulfilled the terms of the lease agreement, in particular, LLC “Promin Podillya” paid the rent, which PERSON_1 received as an heir. This indicated that the lease agreement was being executed and, therefore, could not be considered unenforceable. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove the invalidity of the signature on the additional agreement, and the court’s refusal to conduct a repeated examination was justified due to the lack of sufficient comparative material.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, thereby confirming the legality of the lease of the land plot by LLC “Promin Podillya.”
**Subject of the Dispute:** The appeal of the convicted person against the sentence for intentional murder, life imprisonment, and procedural violations during the pre-trial investigation.
**Main Arguments Used by the Court:** The Supreme Court decided that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments about the use of unauthorized investigation methods, as the pre-trial investigation on these facts is still ongoing and a final decision has not been made. The court emphasized that, according to the practice of the ECHR, the use of evidence obtained in violation of human rights is inadmissible, and stressed that the appellate review must be impartial and objective.
**What Decision the Court Made:**
**Subject of the Dispute:** The cassation appeal of the defender against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused under Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal but decided to leave the ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal unchanged. This indicates that the court found no grounds for satisfying the defender’s appeal, which may indicate the absence of procedural or substantive law violations that could affect the fairness of the previous decision.
**Court Decision:** The ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal was left unchanged, the cassation appeal of the defender was rejected, and the ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of a fine in the amount of UAH 136,000 and the obligation to provide a report on net income from activities in the leased premises between the State Enterprise “Boryspil International Airport” and LLC “BF AND GH Travel Retail LTD.”
2. The court was guided by the fact that **the Defendant did not fulfill its obligations** under the contract to provide certificates of net income, which made it impossible to accurately calculate the fee for the services provided. It was also taken into account that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the provisions regarding the period for calculating penalties, provided for in paragraph 7 of section IX “Final Provisions” of the Commercial Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court confirmed that these provisions extend the period for calculating penalties during the quarantine period.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for the recovery of UAH 25,100 in penalties, and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv Region in this part.
**Subject of the Dispute:** Military unit NUMBER_1 challenged actions related to the refusal to pay indexations of monetary allowances to PERSON_1 for a specific period and the refusal to renew the term for appealing the decision of the court of first instance.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings, considering that the lack of appropriate budget funding is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for an appeal. The Supreme Court supported this position, noting that the payment of court fees is a mandatory condition for filing an appeal, and missed deadlines can only be renewed in the presence of circumstances that are objectively insurmountable and do not depend on the will of the person challenging the decision.
**Court Decision:**
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: PERSON_1 challenged the inaction of the Main Directorate of the National Police in the Luhansk Region regarding her non-inclusion in the composition of the Joint Forces, which affected her monetary provision.of reasonable legal expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed. The court found that the expenses claimed by “NOR-EST AGRO” were justified and proportionate to the legal services provided.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the motion of “NOR-EST AGRO” and ordered the recovery of legal expenses from the Farmer’s Household “SHANS-4” in favor of “NOR-EST AGRO” as compensation for legal assistance costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.court costs to the party in whose favor the court decision is made, provided they are real, justified, and necessary. The court noted that the claimed amount for legal assistance should correspond to the complexity of the case and the services provided, and determined that part of the claimed expenses did not meet the criteria of reasonableness and necessity. In particular, the court considered that the attorney was already familiar with the case materials, which reduced the necessary duration and complexity of the legal work.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application of LLC “NOR-EST AGRO” and decided to recover 11,000 hryvnias from the Farm “SHANS-4” in favor of LLC “NOR-EST AGRO” for court costs for professional legal assistance in the appellate instance.
Case No. 917/1451/22 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The plaintiff (PERSON_1) filed a lawsuit to compel LLC “Nivelon” to provide him with copies and drafts of the minutes of the general meeting of the company’s participants for review and to make his comments.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the plaintiff has the **right to review** and make comments on the minutes of the general meetings, as this ensures the realization of his corporate rights. The court also emphasized that the failure to provide these documents is a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. It was recognized that the courts of the first and appellate instances failed to provide adequate evidence regarding the actual existence and implementation of the meeting’s decisions, making the decisions of these courts premature.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims for providing draft minutes, and sent this part of the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the Poltava region.
This decision confirms the importance of respecting the corporate rights of company participants, particularly regarding access to information and participation in the management of the company’s affairs.
Case No. 916/4921/23 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the mortgage after the inheritance was declared escheat.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Odessa City Council challenged previous court decisions, pointing out missed statute of limitations, stating that the territorial community is not a successor to the obligations of the deceased person, and the lack of necessary evidence regarding the debt. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant’s arguments, indicating that the statute of limitations was indeed violated, and that the courts of previous instances did not take this circumstance into account.
**Court Decision:**
Case No. 911/1041/19 (910/4281/23) dated 15/10/2024
The subject of the dispute involves the recovery of legal assistance costs incurred by LLC “Maxis Limited” in connection with the consideration of a cassation appeal in the case.
The court justified its decision by stating that according to the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, legal assistance costs are part of court costs, and their amount is determined based on submitted evidence, such as contracts and invoices. The court considered that the claimed amount of expenses is commensurate with the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney, as well as the absence of objections from LLC “Stoma-Svit.”
The court decided to satisfy the application of LLC “Maxis Limited” and recover 16,000 UAH in legal assistance costs from LLC “Stoma-Svit.”
Case No. 201/9248/20 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Cassation appeals by the defense attorneys of the convicted PERSON_8 against the verdict of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals, decided to uphold the verdict and ruling of the lower courts without changes. This may indicate that the court found no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeals, particularly any procedural law violations or incorrect application of substantive law norms that could affect the legality of the decisions of the previous instances.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys were left unsatisfied.
This decision is final and not subject to appeal, thus the case is considered concluded in the cassation instance.
Case No. 183/3002/23 dated 29/10/2024
### Subject of Dispute
The lawsuit of the Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank” against PERSON_1 for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
### Main Arguments of the Court
The court of first instance denied the claim because the bank **missed the statute of limitations** for filing a lawsuit for debt recovery. The appellate court agreed with this decision, stating that it corresponds to the established circumstances of the case and the norms of law. The Supreme Court also supported these decisions, noting that the statute of limitations is calculated from the moment of the demand for early repayment of the debt, and that the bank did not prove the fact of interrupting the statute of limitations.
### Court Decision
The Supreme Court **left unsatisfied** the cassation appeal of PrivatBank and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 910/11746/21 (910/5244/23) dated 22/10/2024
1. ***Subject of Dispute***: Application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction, in particular, the cancellation of the debtor’s obligation under such a transaction related to the assignment agreement.
2. ***Main Arguments Used by the Court***:
– ***Restoration of the Company***: The court noted that COMPASS INVEST TEAM LP was restored in the register, which, according to section 1028 of the Companies Act 2006, is considered as if it had never been struck off the register. This means that the concluded agreement is considered valid.
– ***Approval of the Agreement***: The parties, including the General Partner of the company, signed a Memorandum confirming the approval of the assignment agreement, which excludes its non-compliance with part two of article 203 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– ***Lack of Grounds for Fictitiousness***: The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to recognize the agreement as fictitious, as there was no established intent of the parties to create other legal consequences.
3. ***Court Decision***: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming the legality of the concluded agreement.
Case No. 910/3745/23 dated 29/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Recovery of debt, penalties, and fines for improper performance of the contract between LLC “Sun-Energy Ukraine” and SE “Guaranteed Buyer” regarding the payment for electricity under the “green” tariff.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted that during the period of martial law in Ukraine, the provisions of the NERC Resolution No. 332 prohibit the accrual and recovery of penalties in such legal relations, as confirmed by previously provided legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases. The appellate court did not take this legal norm and the Supreme Court’s decision into account, leading to the incorrect application of substantive law.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal in the part of the recovery of penalties and fines and issued a new decision, denying the claim in this part.
Case No. 824/94/23 dated 24/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** PERSON_1 challenged the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the issuance of writs of execution for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision, which concerned the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and fines.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted that according to current legislation, particularly the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the presence or absence of grounds for recognizing an enforcement document as unenforceable should be assessed through the presence of procedural and substantive legal grounds. The court also emphasized that the right to appellate review cannot be limited due to jurisdiction, and PERSON_1’s application to recognize the writs of execution as unenforceable was not substantiated with appropriate evidence regarding the annulment or appeal of the arbitration court’s decision.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the appeal of PERSON_1, changed the reasoning part of the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling, but left the operative part unchanged, thereby confirming the legality of the issuance of the writs of execution.
Case No. 676/4211/21 dated 16/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Recognition of invalidity of…1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The dispute concerns the annulment of the order by Kamianets-Podilskyi District State Administration regarding the allocation of a land plot to private ownership, the cancellation of the land plot registration, and its return to state ownership.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court concluded that the land plot transferred to private ownership belongs to the forest and nature reserve fund lands, which have a special usage regime. The court noted that without a decision from a competent executive authority and proper project-technical documentation, changing the designated purpose of such lands is illegal. It was also considered that the land is under the permanent use of the State Enterprise “Kamianets-Podilskyi Forestry,” and no decision was made by the district administration to withdraw these lands.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, leaving the decision of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal, which declared the order of Kamianets-Podilskyi District State Administration invalid and returned the land plot to state ownership, unchanged.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedures and legal norms when changing the designated purpose of forest fund lands and confirms the priority of state interests in protecting natural resources.
Case No. 202/7769/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The dispute concerns the return of funds paid under a sick leave certificate, which was deemed unfounded, and the obligation to submit a new application-calculation for the payment of these funds.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court dismissed the initial claim as no evidence was provided to substantiate the unfounded issuance of the sick leave certificate, and the validity of the sick leave certificate was not confirmed in court. The courts concluded that there are no grounds for returning the funds paid to INDIVIDUAL_1, as no evidence of violation of the conditions for granting temporary disability benefits was provided.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Service, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the validity of the counterclaim by INDIVIDUAL_1.
Case No. 483/1220/21 dated 29/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt under loan agreements between INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly identified the existence of legal relations between the parties under loan agreements provided in US dollars, but emphasized that the debt amount should have been recovered in hryvnias, as this was the requested part of the claim. The cassation court also highlighted that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of the loan agreements, and the refusal to recover part of the debt was justified due to the failure to provide the original receipt.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decision of the Ochakiv City District Court and the ruling of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal unchanged, confirming the legality of recovering the debt in the amount of 1,852,320.00 UAH.
Case No. 521/10527/22 dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation of a man and a woman without marriage registration for obtaining a one-time monetary assistance in case of a serviceman’s death.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court of first instance, and subsequently the appellate court, established that **INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_4** lived as a family, managed a joint household, had a shared budget, and mutual rights and obligations, meeting the criteria for defining a family. This decision was substantiated by appropriate evidence, such as neighbors’ testimonies, receipts, correspondence, and witness statements. The Supreme Court, reviewing the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense, confirmed the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts, emphasizing that the appeal’s arguments do not refute the courts’ conclusions.
**Court Decision:** **The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, leaving the decisions of the first and appellate courts unchanged**, confirming the fact of cohabitation of INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_4 as a family without marriage registration.
Case No. 27/55(914/1780/23) dated 23/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an application for the distribution of legal costs for professional legal assistance in the case of declaring a lease agreement invalid.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court was guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, specifically articles 123, 126, 129, which regulate the distribution of legal costs. The court considered whether the costs were related to the case, whether they were reasonable and proportional to the subject of the dispute, and also took into account the parties’ behavior during the case consideration. As a result, the court concluded that the claimed legal assistance costs were reasonable and documented.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the application of the Joint Ukrainian-German Enterprise “Tristalko” and ordered the Private Enterprise “Roma” to pay 20,000 UAH for professional legal assistance costs.
Case No. 120/14514/21-a dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: Challenging the decision on the payment of debt for the unified social contribution, which was deemed unlawful and canceled at the first instance by the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 against the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Vinnytsia Oblast.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appellate review is a constitutional guarantee, and the state must ensure its realization. The court pointed out that the appellate court did not consider the improper notification of the respondent about the first instance decision, and the fact that the decision was sent to the Unified State Register of Court Decisions much later than it was made. This led to incorrect calculation of the deadline for filing an appeal.
3. **Court Decision**: **The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal**, canceled the ruling of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal on the refusal to open appellate proceedings, and sent the case for further consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 824/2/22 dated 31/10/2024
The court left unchanged the part concerning the recognition of the letter as unenforceable but modified the part regarding the recovery of funds, reducing the amount of unjustly received funds to be returned.
**Court Decision:** The appeal of INDIVIDUAL_2 was partially satisfied.
Case No. 761/14792/22 dated 31/10/2024
**Recognition of the suspension of the employment contract as illegal and its cancellation, as well as the recovery of wage arrears and average earnings for the period of forced absence.**
2. Main arguments used by the court: The court noted that **the suspension of the employment contract was unlawful**, as the respondent continued its activities during martial law, and employees had the opportunity to work remotely. Furthermore, **the impossibility of providing work to the employee**, which could be performed remotely, was not proven, which is a condition for suspending the contract under the law. The court also found that there were no grounds for recovering wage arrears, as the plaintiff did not prove the fact of fulfilling her duties.
3. Court Decision: **Cassation appeals were dismissed.**
Case No. 826/20319/16 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: Challenging the actions and decisions of LLC “Service-Champion” by the State Environmental Inspection in Chernihiv Oblast, particularly regarding the inspection, drafting of the act, and calculation of environmental damage.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court established that the inspection of the respondent was conducted in accordance with current legislation, and the drafted act is not a decision of an authority, as it does not entail any rights or obligations for the inspected persons. The damage calculation was recognized as lawful and complies with established rules, and the actions of drafting a claim are the right of the controlling body. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances due to procedural law violations during the automated distribution of the court case.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “Service-Champion,” canceled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/11291/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute:** Dispute between Sole Proprietor Sidorenko Olena Volodymyrivna and LLC “Talan Systems” regarding the recovery of debt for provided consulting services and recognition of the contract.invalid.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the fact of service provision and breach of obligations by LLC “Talan Systems” was confirmed by the case materials, and attempts to challenge the validity of the contract as fictitious were unfounded, as there were long-standing legal relations and partial payments. The Supreme Court found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal and recognized that the previous court decisions were lawful and justified.
Court Decision:
Case No. 914/127/20 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The claim of the joint-stock company “ProCredit Bank” regarding the recovery from INDIVIDUAL_1 of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of 1,401,198.58 UAH, which were partially satisfied by the appellate court.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The cassation court noted that the appellate court rightly reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, considering the **disproportion** of the claimed expenses with the specific circumstances of the case, complexity, time, and volume of services provided. The court also referred to the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which allow for the reduction of such expenses if they are **unjustified and disproportionate**.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left the decision of the appellate court unchanged, denying the Bank’s cassation appeal and recognizing the allocation of legal assistance expenses in the amount of 200,000 UAH as fair.
Case No. 910/8404/15-g dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Imposition of subsidiary liability on former managers of LLC “Eksliftbudservice” due to the company’s bankruptcy.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court confirmed the conclusions of the appellate court that the actions of INDIVIDUAL_1 (general director) and INDIVIDUAL_2 (head of the liquidation commission) led to the company’s bankruptcy. The court noted that entering into a loan agreement on unfavorable terms and asset withdrawal indicated intentional deterioration of the debtor’s financial condition. Additionally, the court established that both defendants concealed information about the company’s financial condition, avoiding the transfer of documentation to the liquidator.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court decided to leave the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 and INDIVIDUAL_2 unsatisfied, leaving unchanged the decision of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court, which imposed subsidiary liability on them.
Case No. 908/314/18 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The dispute concerns the reimbursement of court expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” due to the inaction of the state executor of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
**Main Arguments Used by the Court:**
1. **Right to Legal Assistance:** The Supreme Court recognized that everyone has the right to professional legal assistance, and this right is protected by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law “On Advocacy and Advocacy Activities.”
2. **Amount of Expenses:** The court concluded that expenses for legal assistance should be **proportionate to the complexity of the case** and **reasonable** in their amount. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the claimed amount of expenses of 4,550 UAH is proportional to the work performed by the lawyer.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the application of LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” and ordered the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to pay LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” **4,550 UAH** in court expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 908/314/18 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** The dispute concerns the reimbursement of court expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” due to the inaction of the state executor and the consideration of the relevant cassation appeal.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court of Ukraine, guided by the principles of procedural law, recognized that the expenses for legal assistance incurred by the plaintiff are justified, real, and proportional to the work performed by the lawyer. The court emphasized the right of the party to compensation for court expenses, which corresponds to the principle of reimbursement of expenses to the party in whose favor the court decision is made. The court also took into account previous decisions of lower courts, which partially satisfied the application for reimbursement of expenses.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court decided to order the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to pay LLC “Company “NIKO-TAIS” the amount of **4,550 UAH** for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 914/1353/16 dated 15/10/2024
newly discovered circumstances must be significant and unknown at the time of the case consideration, and the fact of property requisition
Case No. 128/2938/17 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** A claim for the return of a self-occupied part of a land plot and the removal of obstacles in the use of a land plot belonging to INDIVIDUAL_1, against INDIVIDUAL_2 and INDIVIDUAL_3.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The court of first instance, whose decision was supported by the appellate decision, satisfied the claim, relying on the conclusions of the judicial land-technical expertise, which confirmed the fact of self-occupation of INDIVIDUAL_1’s land plot by the defendants. **The court also noted that the defendants did not file a motion for additional expertise or present their own evidence to refute the conclusions of the expertise.** Moreover, the courts reminded that according to legal norms, the current owners of land plots are the proper defendants in such cases, regardless of who erected the fence.
3. **Court Decision:** **The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the lower courts in the case unchanged, confirming that the decisions were made taking into account the norms of substantive and procedural law.**
Case No. 332/245/22 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the **recognition of the state registration of ownership of an apartment as illegal** and the restoration of ownership rights, considering the moratorium on the foreclosure of property provided as security for foreign currency loans.
The main arguments used by the court in making the decision were: **recognition that the plaintiff INDIVIDUAL_1 is neither a borrower nor a mortgagor**, and therefore does not fall under the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Foreclosure of Property Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans”. In addition, the court considered that **INDIVIDUAL_2, who is the borrower, does not reside in the disputed apartment and has other housing**, making the moratorium inapplicable in this case.
The court decided **to satisfy the cassation appeal of JSC “Sense Bank”, cancel the decision of the appellate court** and uphold the decision of the first instance, which denied the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 947/16775/23 dated 23/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the inaction of the First Kyiv Department of the State Executive Service in Odesa as unlawful due to the failure to lift the arrest from the real estate of INDIVIDUAL_1.
The court was guided by several main arguments: firstly, **the deadlines for re-submitting the executive document for execution have expired**, indicating the absence of actions by the claimant aimed at enforcing the court decision. Secondly, **the continuation of the arrest on the property for more than 10 years without active actions by the claimant** is considered unjustified interference with the person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, which is a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the state executive service unsatisfied, leaving the previous court decisions in force, which obliged the state service to lift the arrest from INDIVIDUAL_1’s property.
Case No. 910/6608/24 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute concerns the obligation of the Podil District State Administration in Kyiv to enter information into the Unified State Register about the LLC “Millward Brown ARMI-Marketing Ukraine” being in the process of termination.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court emphasized that the proper defendant in the case is the Podil District State Administration, not the state registrar, as the administrator is the subject of state registration responsible for making changes to the register. The courts of previous instances mistakenly believed that the disputed legal relations concerned a separate state registrar, leading to the incorrect determination of the defendant.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the Kyiv Commercial Court and the decision of the appellate court.by referring the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv for proper clarification of circumstances and correct resolution of the case.
Case No. 757/18007/21-c dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: A lawsuit for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation filed by INDIVIDUAL_1 against the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and INDIVIDUAL_2, regarding allegations of involvement in organizing mass riots.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance, supported by the appellate court, decided that the statements made by INDIVIDUAL_2 are **value judgments** and do not contain direct accusations of criminal activity, as he emphasized that it was his “personal opinion.” It was also considered that INDIVIDUAL_1 is a public figure, which broadens the scope of permissible criticism, and the disputed statements cannot be regarded as the official position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1’s representative and decided to leave the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, considering them lawful and justified.
Case No. 911/1683/23 dated 22/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Challenging the state registration of a land plot, termination of ownership rights, and reclamation of the land plot in favor of the state.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court emphasized the violation of land legislation, as a third party had already exercised their right to free acquisition of a land plot for personal farming. The alienation of the illegally obtained land plot in favor of respondent-2 violated the requirements of Articles 328 and 330 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, thus the land plot is subject to reclamation in favor of the state. The court also concluded that the prosecutor’s appeal did not exceed his powers, and the demand to restore the record in the cadastre is not an effective means of protection.
**Court Decision:**
Case No. 912/2308/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The petition of the HOA “Reformator” for the recovery of legal assistance costs of an attorney in the cassation court in the case against PJSC “Kirovohradoblenergo.”
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court **partially satisfied** the petition of the HOA “Reformator,” recognizing the legal assistance costs in the amount of **6,500 hryvnias** as justified, to be recovered from PJSC “Kirovohradoblenergo.” The decision was made based on Articles 126, 129, 244 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which regulate the grounds and procedure for recovering legal assistance costs.
**Court Decision:** The court ordered PJSC “Kirovohradoblenergo” to pay **6,500 hryvnias** for legal assistance to the HOA “Reformator,” denying the rest of the claims.
Case No. 520/1093/24 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** INDIVIDUAL_1 filed a lawsuit against the Kharkiv District Military Administration demanding recognition of a certain period of work as state service and its inclusion in the state service record.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court notes that INDIVIDUAL_1’s appeal was returned by the Second Administrative Court of Appeal due to non-compliance with the requirements for providing a document on the payment of court fees within the established period, justified by the lack of documentary confirmation of payment through the “Electronic Court” system. The court emphasizes the applicant’s obligation to provide such a document, which is the basis for verifying the payment to the State Budget. INDIVIDUAL_1’s arguments regarding the court’s obligation to verify the payment without the provided document were rejected.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed INDIVIDUAL_1’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal, confirming the correct application of procedural law norms.
Case No. 453/1402/21 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The refusal of the defender of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_8 from the cassation appeal against the verdict of the Lviv Court of Appeal.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court reviewed the refusal of the defender and the consent of the convicted INDIVIDUAL_8 to withdraw the cassation appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court recognized these actions as legitimate, as the defender and the convicted have the right to refuse cassation appeal, leading to the closure of the cassation proceedings.
3. **Court Decision**: The court decided to **close the cassation proceedings** on the submitted cassation appeal, and this decision comes into force upon announcement.
Case No. 335/6079/20 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** Insufficient evidence regarding ownership rights to the property complex – ice rink, and lack of legal grounds for claiming material and moral damages, as **ownership of this property at the time of its seizure was not proven**. Additionally, the court considered the decision of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region, which established that the owner of the ice rink is another person.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed **without satisfaction** the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 and upheld **in force**
Case No. 910/18282/23 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The lawsuit of LLC “Law Firm “Lavrynovych and Partners” against Sole Proprietor Viktoriya Zymnia for the recovery of debt under a sublease agreement in the amount of 2,038,811.16 UAH.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The cassation court noted that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances under which the defendant could have been exempted from paying rent, particularly due to **restricted access to the premises during hostilities**. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not consider the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicate the **necessity of proving the impossibility of using the leased property for reasons beyond the tenant’s control**.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court **canceled the ruling** of the appellate court in the part of recovering the principal debt and sent the case for a new trial, recognizing the need for a more thorough investigation of the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 199/6150/19 dated 22/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The cassation appeal of the prosecutor regarding the amendment of the sentence of INDIVIDUAL_6, convicted for a series of criminal offenses, and the issue of exemption from punishment for one of them due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The cassation court determined that the appellate court made an error by not considering the expiration of the statute of limitations for one of the criminal offenses provided for in Part 2 of Article 28 – Part 1 of Article 357 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. According to the law, the statute of limitations for prosecution for this offense has expired, and new crimes committed by INDIVIDUAL_6 interrupted the statute of limitations. The court also noted the importance of not violating the presumption of innocence of another person, INDIVIDUAL_7, by excluding his name from the reasoning part of the decision.
**Court Decision:** The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amending the appellate court’s ruling and releasing INDIVIDUAL_6 from punishment under Part 2 of Article 28 – Part 1 of Article 357 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, while leaving the rest of the sentence unchanged.
Case No. 607/13347/22 dated 28/10/2024
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the decision regarding the criminal liability of INDIVIDUAL_6 for theft of property worth less than 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.
The court was guided by the fact that changes in legislation, which increased the threshold value of property for criminal liability, have retroactive effect, effectively decriminalizing the actions of INDIVIDUAL_6, which were previously considered a criminal offense but now fall under administrative liability. The court also considered that the value of the stolen property does not exceed the newly established threshold, therefore INDIVIDUAL_6’s actions do not meet the criteria of a criminal offense under current legislation.
The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel previous court decisions, and close the criminal proceedings against INDIVIDUAL_6 based on legislative changes that eliminate criminal liability for his actions.
Case No. 914/3740/21 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** The claims of LLC “Gig-Ant” for the recognition of monetary obligations of the Private Enterprise “Aviafinservice” in the amount of 15,000,000 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court denied the claims of LLC “Gig-Ant” due to the lack of sufficient evidence to confirm contractual relations with the debtor, as well as the inconsistency of the claimed debt with the actual circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the movement of funds between business entities occurred without a justified economic purpose and,likely for the purpose of obtaining tax benefits. Without providing the original contract, the applicant failed to prove the circumstances that would support his claims, and therefore, the courts of first and appellate instances refused to include the monetary claims in the register of creditors’ claims.
**Court Decision:**
**Case No. 903/64/22 (903/266/22) dated 15/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Recognition of the sales contracts for land plots and the mortgage contract as invalid, concluded without the consent of the mortgagee and without state registration.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court determined that the sales contracts contradict the law as they were concluded without the consent of the mortgagee and without state registration, violating part 1 of Article 203 and parts 1, 3 of Article 215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the appellate court recognized the statute of limitations as missed concerning one of the contracts, as the defendant was not properly notified about the case consideration and could not claim the statute of limitations.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court annulled the appellate court’s decision in the part where it refused to recognize the sales contract between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 as invalid and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Volyn Region in this part, recognizing the contract as invalid.
**Case No. 991/6018/24 dated 25/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Application of sanctions in the form of asset recovery to the state revenue due to the defendants’ alleged facilitation of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court confirmed that the defendants, as owners and managers of the USM Group companies, exercised control and had a decisive influence on actions that facilitated the aggression of the Russian Federation. The court also considered that actions taken before and after 24.05.2022 could be used to justify sanctions, as the Sanctions Law allows such measures against persons threatening Ukraine’s national interests. It was also taken into account that the defendants effectively own and control assets through controlled companies, and their actions were aimed at supporting the aggression of the Russian Federation, including through financial support and informational activities.
3. **Court Decision**: The appellate court upheld the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court without changes, confirming the legality of asset recovery to the state revenue, as the appeals did not refute the conclusions of the first instance court.
This decision demonstrates how Ukrainian courts apply sanctions under martial law conditions, using legislative tools to protect national security.
**Case No. 607/9210/22 dated 29/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute**: Legality of the appellate court’s decision to annul the first instance court’s verdict and close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 for allegedly providing knowingly false testimony.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**:
– The appellate court considered that there was insufficient proper and admissible evidence of PERSON_7 providing false testimony, and the judicial investigation in the proceedings where he was interrogated as a witness was not yet completed. Therefore, conclusions about his guilt are premature.
– The cassation court confirmed that the appellate court complied with the law and relied on objective circumstances that were not properly assessed by the first instance court.
3. **Court Decision**: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s decision was upheld without changes.
**Case No. 758/5467/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** The case concerns the appeal against the verdict regarding the criminal charge against PERSON_8 for attempted theft under martial law conditions, which was reclassified due to changes in legislation.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the law establishing criminal liability for PERSON_8’s actions lost its validity due to the adoption of Law No. 3886-IX, which reduced the threshold value of property for criminal liability. Thus, PERSON_8’s actions now fall under an administrative offense and are not criminally punishable. The court emphasized that according to the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 5 of the Criminal Code, laws that mitigate criminal liability have retroactive effect.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the previous court decisions regarding PERSON_8 and closed the criminal proceedings, recognizing the legislative changes that abolished the criminal unlawfulness of his actions.
**Case No. 758/3656/23 dated 30/10/2024**
The subject of the dispute concerns the recognition of the actions of LLC “Alliance Novobud” as unlawful regarding the unilateral early termination of contracts for the sale of property rights to an apartment and non-residential premises concluded with PERSON_1.
The main arguments used by the court include: the absence of evidence of proper fulfillment of obligations by the plaintiff due to force majeure circumstances, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence that military aggression directly made it impossible to fulfill obligations. It is also important that the contract terms provided for the possibility of contract termination upon proof of sending a notice, not upon receipt, which the plaintiff did not contest when signing the contract.
The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “Alliance Novobud,” annulled the decisions of the lower courts, and denied the claim of PERSON_1, recognizing that the defendant’s actions comply with the contract terms.
**Case No. 200/11293/20-a dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute**: Recovery from the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office of average earnings and the difference in earnings for the period of forced absence of PERSON_1.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court concluded that the plaintiff did not perform lower-paid work due to illegal transfer, as his work in another position was based on his own applications and consent. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the period from 20.11.2017 to 28.04.2020 is not a forced absence, excluding the possibility of recovering the corresponding difference in earnings for this period.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the appellate court’s decision, thereby denying the recovery of the earnings difference from the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
**Case No. 243/6271/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Appeal by the Patrol Police Department against the decision to return the appeal filed without proper confirmation of the representative’s authority.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court unlawfully returned the appeal, as even if there are doubts about the signatory’s authority, the court has the opportunity to verify the authority through the Unified State Register, and the absence of such confirmation is excessive formalism and a restriction of the right to access justice. The court noted that Article 59 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine does not require additional documents for self-representation of a legal entity.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for further consideration.
**Case No. 300/2785/22 dated 31/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Dispute between LLC “ZAKHID-AGRO MHP” and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Ivano-Frankivsk Region regarding the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the tax notification-decision, which reduced VAT budget reimbursement and imposed penalties.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
– **Application of Deadlines:** The Supreme Court recognized that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norm regarding the deadline for filing an appeal, as the date of the full text of the court decision was not established, and the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of delivery of the full text of the court decision.
– **Unlawful Restriction:** The court indicated that improper fulfillment by the court of the obligation to deliver the decision cannot be a basis for negative procedural consequences for the party.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service, annulled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for further consideration to the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 200/4975/22 dated 31/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the inaction of the State Institution “Probation Center” of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine as unlawful regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration to the plaintiff during martial law.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the legislation…It was provided for the right to additional remuneration for the personnel of the State Criminal-Executive Service during martial law. The court also took into account that the concept of “service duty” does not limit the right to remuneration only to those involved in operational activities or guard duty. The court noted that the unlawful inaction of the defendant is confirmed by the absence of accrual and payment of the remuneration to which the plaintiff was entitled.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the claims, obliging the accrual and payment of additional remuneration to the plaintiff.
Case No. 757/27686/22-c dated 30/10/2024 determined that to recover damages in the form of lost profits, the plaintiff must prove the existence of four elements: unlawful behavior, damages, causal link, and fault of the defendant.
2. The court of first instance concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the intentions to renew deposit agreements and the real possibility of obtaining income, which is the basis for denying the claim.
3. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion.
Case No. 420/9854/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Appeal against the dismissal of police officer OSOBA_1 for failure to comply with the evacuation order during martial law.
2. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court confirmed that OSOBA_1 did not comply with the evacuation order, which was confirmed by a service investigation. The court noted that police service discipline requires strict adherence to the Oath and orders of the leadership, even under martial law. The court also referred to the fact that 1525 police officers successfully evacuated despite difficult circumstances.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed OSOBA_1’s cassation appeal, confirming the legality of the dismissal decision.
Case No. 640/19051/22 dated 01/11/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Dispute between OSOBA_1 and the Main Directorate of the National Police in Kyiv regarding the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful, reinstatement, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. Main arguments of the court: The court determined that an unlawfully issued dismissal order must contain the actual date of dismissal, considering the time worked after reinstatement. The Supreme Court indicated that the decision of the first instance court on reinstatement, allowed for immediate execution, serves as a basis for restoring employment relations until a contrary decision is made by the appellate or cassation court. Incorrect application of substantive law norms and procedural law violations led to partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied OSOBA_1’s cassation appeal, recognizing as unlawful and canceling part of the dismissal order regarding the date, setting a new dismissal date – 27.10.2022, while the rest of the decisions of the first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 640/15159/22 dated 01/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Dispute between the Public Joint Stock Company “All-Ukrainian Joint Stock Bank” represented by the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals and the Shevchenkivskyi Department of the State Executive Service in Kyiv regarding the legality of opening enforcement proceedings for the collection of an enforcement fee.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court noted that the courts of the first and appellate instances did not consider that the enforcement document concerns the authorized person of the Fund, not the Fund itself, and incorrectly regulated the issue of the subjectivity of participants in enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for a full and comprehensive clarification of all circumstances of the case, including the legal status of the parties in enforcement proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the previous courts, and sent the case for a new trial to the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
Case No. 300/6438/21 dated 31/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: An individual entrepreneur challenges the decision of the State Labor Service regarding the imposition of a fine for violating labor legislation, in particular, for not formalizing labor relations with an employee.
2. Main arguments of the court: The court recognized that during the inspection, the actual performance of labor functions by the employee without a labor contract was established, which is a violation of labor legislation requirements. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and indicated that the inspection was conducted in accordance with current legislation, and the decision to impose a fine is lawful. The court also noted that the absence of prior notice of the inspection visit is permissible, allowing for the detection of actual violations.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the legality of the fine imposition.
This decision clearly demonstrates the importance of compliance with labor legislation and confirms the right of labor inspectors to conduct surprise inspections to detect unformalized labor relations.
Case No. 522/10083/21 dated 30/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Plaintiffs challenge the reconstruction of an apartment carried out by the defendant, which, in their opinion, violates fire safety requirements and rights to common joint property of a multi-apartment building.
2. Main arguments of the court: The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim, considering that the reconstruction was carried out without violating fire safety requirements and building norms. However, the Supreme Court noted that the courts did not consider all evidence indicating violations, particularly the presence of an expert opinion indicating obstacles on evacuation routes and the absence of consent from co-owners. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not establish all factual circumstances significant for the correct resolution of the case.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 766/6092/24 dated 01/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Motion by the defendant’s counsel to transfer the criminal proceedings from one court to another within different appellate courts.
Main arguments of the court: The court denied the motion, guided by the provisions of part 2 of Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides for the grounds and procedure for transferring cases within the jurisdiction of the court. The court did not find sufficient grounds for transferring the case that would convince of the necessity to change jurisdiction to ensure an objective and fair trial.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court denied the motion to transfer the criminal proceedings, and the ruling is final and not subject to appeal.
Case No. 543/254/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Appeal against the verdict of the Poltava Court of Appeal, which sentenced OSOBA_8 to life imprisonment for committing murder, as provided by paragraph 13 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Arguments of the court: The cassation court noted that the appellate court reasonably increased the sentence, considering the severity of the crime and the presence of aggravating circumstances, particularly the repeat commission of murder after a previous conviction for a similar crime. The appellate court emphasized that a less severe punishment did not achieve its purpose, as OSOBA_8 had already been convicted for taking the lives of two individuals and committed murder again.
Court Decision:
Case No. 640/11279/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the tax notice-decision regarding the fine imposed on the Enterprise with Foreign Investments “Amic Ukraine” for allegedly violating the accounting of goods and the absence of a commodity subcategory code in the accounting documents.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The courts of first and appellate instances recognized that the absence of certain entries in the oil products accounting journal is not a basis for applying financial sanctions, as all necessary primary accounting documents were provided and the accounting of goods was proper.
– The Supreme Court noted that evidence of unaccounted oil products was not properly examined, and also emphasized that the commodity subcategory code must be indicated in the accounting documents, however, in the specified case, no control purchases were conducted to confirm1. **Case No. 810/827/17 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** The Limited Liability Company “ANIKA” contested the decision of the tax inspection to refuse acceptance of the VAT tax declaration for June 2016, which was submitted in paper form.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court based its decision on the amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine effective from 01.01.2015, which require VAT tax reporting to be submitted exclusively in electronic form with the use of an electronic signature. The appellate court agreed with the tax authority that the refusal to accept the paper declaration was lawful, as there was an existing agreement between the parties for electronic submission, and the Company had no objective reasons for submitting the report in paper form.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, denying the cassation appeal of LLC “ANIKA,” confirming that the tax inspection’s decision was lawful.
2. **Case No. 127/13863/22 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** Compensation for property and moral damages caused to a minor due to the death of his father as a result of a criminal offense.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court, leaving the decisions of the first and appellate courts unchanged, found that all elements of a civil offense were present, including unlawful behavior, damage, causal link between the unlawful behavior and the damage caused, and the defendant’s fault. The determination of the compensation amount was justified based on the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and the principles of reasonableness and fairness were considered in compensating moral damages.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal and confirmed the decisions of the lower courts to partially satisfy the claim, including the award of 300,000 UAH for moral damages and 3,250 UAH monthly for property compensation.
3. **Case No. 369/12781/21 dated 30/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** Reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by the claimant PERSON_2 in the cassation instance.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court was guided by the fact that a party to the case must provide evidence of incurred legal assistance expenses within a specified period, but considering that the claimant did not receive the court decision in time, this period was renewed. The Supreme Court also took into account that the expenses were confirmed by appropriate documents (contract, acts of acceptance-transfer of works, payment documents) and their amount met the criteria of reality and necessity.
**Court Decision:** The court decided to satisfy the application of PERSON_2 and recover 15,000.00 UAH in legal assistance expenses from PERSON_1, recognizing them as justified and documented.
4. **Case No. 500/7140/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** PERSON_1 challenges the inaction of the military unit regarding the accrual and payment of monetary allowances, compensations, and rewards, which, in her opinion, were unlawfully not paid during and after service.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court concluded that the previous courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, particularly Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, regarding the term for filing a claim for wage recovery, as these relations arose before legislative changes that limited the term to three months. The court also noted the absence of evidence that on 19.12.2022 PERSON_1 was informed about the amounts accrued and paid upon dismissal.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1’s lawyer, annulled the decisions of the first and appellate courts, and sent the case for a new trial to the Ternopil District Administrative Court.
5. **Case No. 640/3223/21 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** LLC “TransKom” challenges the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) to terminate the consideration of a complaint regarding a public procurement when the contract was already concluded and executed.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court was guided by the fact that at the time of resolving the dispute, the public procurement was completed, and the contract executed, which excludes the possibility of influencing an already concluded contract through an appeal to the AMCU. The Supreme Court also noted that consideration of such complaints on executed contracts is possible only in court, which was not adhered to in the case of the AMCU.
**Court Decision:** The court left the cassation appeal of LLC “TransKom” unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, confirming the legality of the AMCU’s actions in terminating the consideration of the complaint.
6. **Case No. 420/8669/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the annulment of the decision on immigration permission and permanent residence permit for a citizen of Azerbaijan in Ukraine.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted that the previous instances did not establish specific unlawful actions of the plaintiff that would correspond to the grounds for canceling the immigration permit, as required by Article 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Immigration.” The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal procedure and the immigrant’s rights to protection, including considering possible consequences for his family in Ukraine.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the lower courts, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
7. **Case No. 640/31510/20 dated 01/11/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** A private executor challenges the decision of the Disciplinary Commission of Private Executors and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the application of disciplinary action in the form of suspension of activity for 1 month.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied procedural law norms by considering an appeal of a person who was not a party to the case, without proper attention to her rights and interests. The order of consideration of the appeal was violated, particularly the appellate court did not annul the previously adopted decision, as required by law, which is grounds for annulling the appellate court’s decision and sending the case for a new trial.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court to establish circumstances significant for the correct resolution of the case.
8. **Case No. 420/1117/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** Recognition as invalid and annulment of tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odessa region based on audit acts conducted during the legislatively established moratorium.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court established that the audit was conducted in violation of the moratorium on documentary audits, provided by paragraph 52-2 of subsection 10 of section XX Transitional Provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine. This violation makes the audit acts inadmissible as evidence in the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine did not have the authority to change the terms of the moratorium through a resolution, as such changes can only be made by amending the Tax Code of Ukraine.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service unsatisfied, and the decisions of the first and appellate courts, which recognized the tax notices-decisions as unlawful and annulled them, unchanged.
9. **Case No. 530/509/22 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the decision on an administrative offense issued by a parking inspector of the Transport and Communications Department of the Khmelnytsky City Council.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court found that the appellate court unlawfully refused to open appellate proceedings, as the specified defendant had the right to file an appeal. The court emphasized the right to appellate review of the case, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, and indicated that the decision of the first instance court affected the rights and obligations of the Parking Control Inspection, giving it grounds for appellate appeal.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open appellate proceedings and sent the case for further consideration in the appellate court.735/716/23 dated 30/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Appeal against the conviction of PERSON_7 for cable theft, which was reclassified due to changes in legislation.
2. The court, in making its decision, used the main arguments, particularly that **no substantial violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law** was found, as the inspections were conducted in compliance with the law, including the voluntary consent of the owners for the inspection. The court also considered that the **repeal of the law** that established the criminality of the act allowed for the closure of the proceedings, as the theft at the time of its commission did not exceed the established threshold for criminal prosecution.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court overturned the verdicts of the lower courts regarding PERSON_7 and closed the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the law establishing the criminality of the act had been repealed.
Case No. 758/5467/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute was the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the decision of the appellate court to overturn the verdict on the accusation of a citizen of committing a criminal offense under parts 2 of Article 15 and 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The main arguments used by the court were the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, particularly the articles regulating the grounds for overturning court decisions. The court decided that the law establishing the criminality of the act had been repealed, which became the basis for overturning previous court decisions.
The court decided to partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court and the verdict of the district court, and closed the criminal proceedings due to the repeal of the law establishing the criminality of the act.
Case No. 160/4352/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Non-payment of additional remuneration to serviceman PERSON_1 for participation in combat operations from March to May 2022.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court noted that the absence of a certificate from the commander of the military unit to which the plaintiff was seconded is not a sufficient ground for refusing the payment of additional remuneration. The court emphasized that other documents, such as combat orders or combat logs, can confirm the fact of the serviceman’s participation in combat operations. The appellate court did not consider the possibility of confirming PERSON_1’s participation in combat operations with other documents and did not conduct a proper investigation of the circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court **overturned the decision of the appellate court** and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 520/5353/24 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute**: Recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the tax notification-decision of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv region regarding the tax liability for the transport tax, as well as the issue of court fee recovery.
**Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court noted that the proceedings in the case were closed due to the absence of the subject of the dispute, as the Main Department of the State Tax Service independently canceled the tax notification-decision that was the subject of the appeal. In such a case, according to the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the court fee cannot be recovered from the budget allocations of the authority, as the dispute was not resolved on the merits.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv region, overturning the ruling and decision of the previous courts regarding the recovery of the court fee from the State Tax Service.
Case No. 160/18653/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. ***Subject of the dispute:*** The dispute concerns the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the conclusion of the Western Office of the State Audit Service on the results of monitoring the procurement procedure conducted by the Department of Humanitarian Policy of the Dnipro City Council.
2. ***Main arguments of the court:*** The Supreme Court noted that *the customer was obliged to conduct the procurement with the publication of the announcement in English* if the expected cost exceeds 133 thousand euros, which was not done, constituting a violation of the law. The court also found that *the tender proposal of the participant, LLC “Contract Prodreserve 5”, did not meet the qualification criteria* provided by Article 16 of Law No. 922-VIII, and such non-compliance required the rejection of the proposal.
3. ***Court decision:*** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Western Office of the State Audit Service, overturned the decision of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the first instance court to deny the claim of the Department.
Case No. 826/10460/16 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** Appeal against dismissal, reinstatement in position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals, was guided by the fact that the primary court decision protected the plaintiff’s right to work, and also took into account the requirements for the correct calculation of average earnings for the period of forced absence in accordance with Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and Order No. 100. The court noted that the appellate court correctly considered the amount of the average daily wage and the period of forced absence that was subject to payment, and also confirmed that there were no grounds for overturning the additional decision.
**Court decision:**
Case No. 240/29215/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recognition of the inaction of the Pension Fund of Ukraine as unlawful regarding the non-calculation and non-payment of an increase to the pension of a minor child living in a radioactive contamination area.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court noted that **minor children**, who are granted a pension due to the loss of a breadwinner, are **non-working pensioners** within the meaning of Law No. 1058-IV due to their **incapacity**. This means that such children are entitled to receive **an increase to the pension** in accordance with Article 39 of Law No. 796-XII, which equals **two subsistence minimums** for able-bodied persons if they reside in a **radioactive contamination area**. Previous court decisions that denied the claim were made with **incorrect application of substantive law norms**, and therefore are subject to cancellation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the previous court decisions, and ordered the Pension Fund to calculate and pay the pension increase in the specified amount.
Case No. 824/13/24 dated 31/10/2024
**Recognition and granting permission for the enforcement of the final ICC arbitration award for the recovery of debt from AVANGARDCO Investments Public Limited in favor of Landesbank Berlin AG.**
2. Main arguments of the court: *The court established that the **ICC arbitration award is binding** and was submitted within the time limit established by law. The Kyiv Court of Appeal found no grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award, as all requirements regarding the form and content of the application were met, and the debtor provided sufficient evidence of awareness of the arbitration process.*
3. Court decision: **The Supreme Court left the appeal of AVANGARDCO Investments Public Limited unsatisfied, and the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.**
Case No. 200/2782/21-a dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** The regional municipal enterprise “Donetsk Heating and Power Company” challenges the unlawfulness and demands the cancellation of the order and decision of the Main Department of the State Consumer Service in Donetsk region regarding the violation of the procedure for forming and applying state-regulated prices/tariffs for thermal energy and hot water.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court confirmed that **the plaintiff** had no right to conclude new contracts for utility services with new tariffs during the quarantine period, as this **contradicts paragraph 3 of section VI “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Housing and Communal Services”**. The courts of previous instances also recognized that the tariffs approved by the Donetsk Regional State Administration cannot be revised by the enterprise independently, but the conclusion of new contracts was unlawful.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances, denying the cassation appeal of the regional municipal enterprise “Donetsk Heating and Power Company”, confirming the legality of the actions of the State Consumer Service in the part of applying administrative and economic sanctions.
Case No. 400/7498/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Recognition as unlawful and cancellation of tax notification-decisions regarding the application of penalties.to the individual entrepreneur PERSON_1 for allegedly not registering as an excise tax payer.
2. Main arguments of the court: The court established that the individual entrepreneur PERSON_1 was registered as an excise tax payer from October 20, 2017, as confirmed by documents, and at the time of fuel sale in July 2019, had the appropriate licenses, which excludes the composition of the offense related to the sale of fuel without registration as a payer of this tax. The court noted that the previous instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of the presented evidence and did not investigate all the circumstances of the case properly, which led to the annulment of the decisions.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 520/22006/21 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The plaintiffs challenged the legality of the environmental impact assessment conclusion issued for the construction of an exploratory well, claiming procedural violations and disregard of public comments.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court indicated that the **appellate court incorrectly applied substantive law norms** and did not provide a proper assessment of the factual circumstances of the case, especially regarding compliance with environmental impact assessment procedures. **Kharkiv District Administrative Court** previously established that the nearest water body is outside the coastal protection zones, and the absence of a land management project does not indicate the absence of the protective zone itself, the dimensions of which are established by law. The Supreme Court also noted that all necessary procedures, including conducting a state sanitary-epidemiological examination, were followed to reduce the sanitary protection zone.
3. **Court decision**: **The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the appellate court** and sent the case for a new trial, as the appellate court committed procedural violations that cannot be remedied by the cassation court.
Case No. 656/28/17 dated 30/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Challenging the sentence imposing punishment for criminal offenses related to robberies, in the form of imprisonment for PERSON_7, with a request for its review considering mitigating circumstances.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court recognized that the sentence of the appellate court was lawful and justified, and the courts of previous instances correctly considered the severity of the crimes and the personality of the defendant. There were no grounds for applying the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (on a more lenient punishment), as no circumstances were established that significantly reduce the public danger of the acts. However, the Court agreed that the appellate court should have credited the period of serving the punishment in the form of restriction of liberty when the previous sentence was annulled.
3. **Court decision**: **The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal**, crediting the period of serving the punishment in the form of restriction of liberty, but left other parts of the sentence regarding PERSON_7 unchanged.
Case No. 824/13/24 dated 31/10/2024
The appeal of AVANGARDCO Investments Public Limited was left unsatisfied, and the decision of the Kyiv Appellate Court was left unchanged.
Case No. 420/14902/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Challenging the inaction of the Department of Transport, Communications, and Traffic Organization of the Odessa City Council regarding the non-cancellation of the administrative offense resolution and the non-issuance of a similar resolution concerning the plaintiff.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court emphasized that the contested decision concerns the inaction of the body, not the decision to bring to administrative responsibility, therefore the time limits for appeal provided by Article 286 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine apply. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for restoring the time limit for an appeal, particularly the fact of inpatient treatment and air raids were not proven as those that prevented timely filing of the complaint.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, and the decision of the Fifth Appellate Administrative Court unchanged.
Case No. 320/5867/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the tax notices-decisions issued by the Central Interregional Department of the State Tax Service regarding the unlawful reduction of tax liabilities and non-reimbursement of VAT.
**Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, as **LLC “Satellite” used special rules** introduced by Law No. 2173-IX, allowing companies operating in combat zones to confirm tax reporting data without primary documents. The plaintiff provided all available documents after losing the originals due to military actions in Mariupol, which was recognized as force majeure.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the State Tax Service unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the lower courts on **recognizing the tax notices-decisions as unlawful and their annulment**.
Case No. 280/5064/20 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute in this case concerns challenging the decision of the state registrar regarding the refusal to register the right of permanent use of a land plot.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, confirmed that the dispute is public-law in nature, as it concerns **the legality of the actions of the state registrar** as a subject of authority, who refused to register rights to real estate. The court also noted that this dispute does not have the characteristics of a private-law dispute, as it does not directly concern property rights to the property, but only the legality of the state registrar’s decision.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, confirming that the case was correctly considered in the administrative proceedings.
Case No. 120/3181/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Payment of additional remuneration to a serviceman of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine for participation in combat operations during martial law.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court established that the plaintiff indeed participated directly in combat operations in the territories of Chernihiv and Sumy regions, as confirmed by the relevant certificate of military unit No. 2. All necessary documents were prepared in accordance with the requirements of Order No. 164-AG of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service. The court recognized that the absence of lists of servicemen cannot be a reason for refusal of payment, as the right to remuneration is confirmed by other documents.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the previous courts on recognizing the inaction of the military unit in not paying additional remuneration as unlawful and obliging it to pay.
Case No. 826/10460/16 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Claims of PERSON_1 regarding the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful and its cancellation, reinstatement in the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from the Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv Region.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals, confirmed that **the reinstatement of the plaintiff in the position was already protected by the primary court decision**, and also recognized that the period from 20.11.2017 to 28.04.2020 cannot be considered as forced absence, as the plaintiff was appointed to another position with his consent. The court also indicated that when calculating the average earnings for the period of forced absence, the salary is subject to adjustment by the coefficient of tariff rate increase, but only within the proven circumstances of the case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left **the cassation appeals** of the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office and PERSON_1 **unsatisfied** and upheld the decision of the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court, which provided for the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence in the amount of 211,436.10 UAH.
Case No. 120/4381/23 dated 31/10/2024
Formal violations regarding the transfer of documents between military units do not affect the plaintiff’s right to this payment. The previous courts recognized that the plaintiff’s right to receive the reward is confirmed by a certificate issued based on a combat order, and this confirmed his right to increased remuneration.
The court decided to leave unsatisfied
Case No. 340/5120/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the decision by the Military Unit regarding the return of aAppeal dismissed due to failure to rectify deficiencies within the prescribed period.
**Key arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court noted that the appeal was left without movement due to non-payment of the court fee, and the Military Unit did not rectify the deficiencies within the prescribed period. The court emphasized that the Military Unit received the ruling to leave the appeal without movement on January 11, 2024, but only took the necessary actions on February 9, 2024, which was beyond the period set by the court. The court confirmed the correctness of the appellate court’s actions in returning the appeal, as the deadlines for rectifying deficiencies were violated, and the arguments of the cassation appeal could not refute these circumstances.
**Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Military Unit unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the correctness of the appellate court’s actions and the legality of procedural decisions.
Case No. 738/218/23 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Recognition of a will as invalid, certified by an unauthorized official, and recognition of the right to inheritance by law.
**Key arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court explained that a will certified by an official of a local government body, even if it is not the place of registration of the testator, cannot be considered null and void if it was certified in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the testator’s will was not violated. The court noted that the expression of the testator’s will should take precedence over formal errors in certification if they do not affect the validity of the will.
**Court decision:**
Case No. 295/12625/23 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition of the actions of the Department of Urban Planning and Land Relations of the Zhytomyr City Council as illegal and compensation for moral damage.
**Key arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court determined that the disputed legal relations are administrative and legal in nature and are subject to consideration under the rules of administrative proceedings, as the dispute arose between an individual and the executive body of the city council, which exercised authoritative management functions. This confirms the position that such decisions or inaction of local government bodies fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative court.
**Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the decision of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which refused to open proceedings in the case due to its belonging to administrative jurisdiction.
Case No. 160/31915/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of dispute**: A lawsuit by an individual entrepreneur to recognize as unlawful and annul a tax notice-decision regarding the imposition of a penalty and reimbursement of legal costs.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The court of first instance recognized the costs of legal assistance as justified, as the plaintiff provided relevant documents confirming these costs. The appellate court partially reduced the amounts of costs recognized by the court of first instance to 22,000 UAH, based on the criteria of reasonableness and the scope of services provided. The Supreme Court confirmed the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the justification of the costs was sufficient, and the defendant did not provide evidence to refute the proportionality of the legal assistance costs.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region.
Case No. 440/17558/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of dispute**: Appeal by Military Unit NUMBER_1 against inaction regarding the non-calculation and non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance to PERSON_1 for a certain period.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the appellate court that Military Unit NUMBER_1 did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline for filing an appeal. The court emphasized that the circumstances cited by the appellant, such as a large number of other cases and the impact of martial law, are not objectively insurmountable and cannot justify missing procedural deadlines. Furthermore, the court noted that the decision of the court of first instance was timely delivered to the Military Unit’s email, thus it is considered served.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of Military Unit NUMBER_1 unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the legality of previous court decisions in the case.
Case No. 420/9023/24 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of dispute**: The lawsuit concerned the demand of PERSON_1 to recognize the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-calculation and non-payment of increased additional remuneration, established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168, for participation in combat operations during martial law as unlawful.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court found that the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly investigate all the circumstances of the case and evidence, in particular, did not verify the documentary confirmation of the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations, which may provide grounds for increased remuneration. The court emphasized the obligation of the courts to adhere to the principle of official clarification of all circumstances of the case, and that the absence of certain documents does not necessarily indicate the absence of the right to remuneration.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, annulled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances in the part concerning additional remuneration for certain periods, and sent the case for a new trial to the Odessa District Administrative Court, leaving other parts of the decisions unchanged.
Case No. 380/17049/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of dispute**: Appeal against the decision to open enforcement proceedings for the collection of an enforcement fee from PERSON_1, issued by a state executor in the city of Lviv.
2. **Key arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court noted that the state executor did not issue a new decision on the collection of the enforcement fee after returning the enforcement document to the claimant, which contradicts the provisions of part three of Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court also noted that such an approach could lead to the repeated collection of the enforcement fee, which is unacceptable. The conclusions from previous court practice were not relevant to the circumstances of this case, so the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the law.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, annulled the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and declared the decision to open enforcement proceedings unlawful and annulled it.
Case No. 676/1773/20 dated 18/10/2024
1. **Subject of dispute:** Compensation for property and moral damage caused to PERSON_1 by the unlawful actions of investigative bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the court.
2. **Key arguments of the court:** The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff has the right to compensation in connection with unlawful criminal prosecution, prolonged investigation and trial, which caused her significant moral suffering. The appellate court changed the amount of compensation for moral damage, based on the minimum wage at the time of the case consideration, and took into account the emotional suffering of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the decision, partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, changing the decision regarding the costs of conducting an examination.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, changed the decision of the court of first instance in the part of the distribution of costs for conducting an examination, leaving other decisions unchanged.
Case No. 383/990/22 dated 18/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Recognition of the decisions of the local council and state acts on the right of ownership of a land plot as invalid and annulment.
The main arguments of the court were that the contested decisions regarding the transfer of land plots were made in violation of the law, as the transfer of ownership of a real estate object must be accompanied by the transfer of the right to the corresponding land plot, and also in establishing that the plaintiff has a registered right of ownership to the house located on the disputed plot. The court also indicated that the decision to transfer land plots in the part concerning the right of PERSON_2 is illegal and should be annulled, as the plaintiff proved the violation of her ownership rights.
The court decided to annul the previous decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, refuse to satisfy the claim against the Ketrysanivka community as an improper defendant, and send the case in the part of the claims to Oleksiiv.Case No. 759/28614/21 dated 18/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerns the dismissal of PERSON_1 from the duties of guardian over the incapacitated PERSON_2 due to improper performance of guardian duties.
Main arguments of the court: The cassation court noted that the dismissal of PERSON_1 from the duties of guardian does not meet the grounds provided by law, as the courts of previous instances did not consider that the circumstances indicated in the submission of the guardianship authority are not legal grounds for dismissing a guardian, such as failure to perform duties, violation of the ward’s rights, or placing the ward in an appropriate institution. The cassation court pointed out the need to consider reasonableness and adherence to substantive and procedural norms of law, which was not done by the courts of first and appellate instances.
Court decision: The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, denying the submission for the dismissal of PERSON_1 from the duties of guardian.
Case No. 727/7618/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerns the recovery of legal assistance costs incurred by the defendant, in whose favor the cassation court partially recognized the legitimacy of these costs.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court considered the issue of the distribution of legal assistance costs at the cassation review stage, taking into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided by the attorney, and the financial status of the parties. The court reduced the defendant’s claims for costs from 12,000.00 UAH to 2,000.00 UAH, considering the need to adhere to the criterion of reasonableness of costs, as well as the fact that the defendant submitted an estimated calculation of costs late, albeit for valid reasons, such as the late receipt of the cassation court’s ruling through the “Electronic Court.”
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defendant’s application, reinstated the deadline for submitting an application for an additional decision, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant legal assistance costs in the amount of 2,000.00 UAH.
Case No. 463/3730/18 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The Deputy Head of the Prosecutor’s Office challenges the decision of the Vynnyky City Council and the sale contract of 41/100 of a non-residential premises, claiming their illegality and non-compliance with legal norms.
Main arguments of the court: The court noted that the Vynnyky City Council acted within its competence when making the decision to alienate the property, and the prosecutor chose an ineffective way to protect his rights, as he did not demand the recovery of the property from illegal possession. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the decision was executed and exhausted its effect, making the claims ineffective and requiring a new appeal to the court for the actual restoration of violated rights.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 580/6014/22 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Recognition as unlawful and annulment of the tax notice-decision regarding the reduction of the negative VAT value, issued by the Central Interregional Department of the State Tax Service to PJSC “Lebedyn Seed Plant.”
Arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the previous courts correctly assessed the primary accounting documents and concluded the reality of the plaintiff’s business operations with contractors, which contained all necessary details and did not contradict the law. The court also noted that the tax information collected during the audit is not proper evidence of the absence of real operations, and emphasized that the non-payment of tax by the contractor cannot be grounds for denying the right to a tax credit if the operations are genuine.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming that the plaintiff lawfully reflected the VAT amounts in the tax credit.
Case No. 183/1031/20 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal regarding the verdict convicting PERSON_7 for criminal offenses under parts 1 of Article 263 and parts 3 of Article 15 part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, as it was recognized that the reasoning parts of the court decisions contain references to a “technical information processing report,” which cannot be used as evidence of guilt. This indicates a violation of procedural norms during the pre-trial investigation, necessitating the removal of these references from the court decisions.
Court decision: The Supreme Court amended the decisions of the previous judicial instances, excluding inadmissible evidence, but left the rest unchanged.
Case No. 463/9839/20 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The lawsuit of PERSON_1 for the annulment of state registration and recognition of the sale contract of an unfinished construction object as invalid, which, according to the plaintiff, is conducted in violation of land and water legislation.
Main arguments of the court: The court of first instance, and subsequently the appellate court, denied the satisfaction of PERSON_1’s claim, as the plaintiff did not prove the violation of his civil rights or interests in connection with the contested sale contract. The plaintiff is not a party to this contract and does not have property rights to the property that is the subject of the contract, so his rights cannot be violated. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing that to recognize a transaction as invalid, it is necessary to prove the violation of the rights of the person who applies to the court.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals of PERSON_1 and the Lviv City Council unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, confirming the absence of grounds for recognizing the contract as invalid and annulling the state registration.
Case No. 120/4966/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The plaintiff, a serviceman of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, challenges the unlawful inaction of the military unit regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of additional remuneration for participation in combat operations.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff is entitled to additional remuneration, as his direct participation in combat operations was duly documented by a certificate issued based on a combat order. The court indicated that the absence of lists in the form established by the State Border Guard Service cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to remuneration if there is other evidence of participation in combat operations. Furthermore, the court noted that procedural nuances violations by military units should not affect the rights of servicemen to receive remuneration.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to satisfy the claim and obligate the payment of additional remuneration to the plaintiff.
Case No. 280/6931/22 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerned the recognition as unlawful and annulment of tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Vinnytsia region regarding LLC “Zaporizhzhia Titanium-Magnesium Plant.”
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court noted that the violation of procedural requirements during the audit, in particular, the failure to deliver the audit order before its commencement, makes such an audit illegal and its results invalid. The court also considered that the audit had already been conducted by another tax inspection, and conducting a repeat audit is a violation of the law prohibiting repeat audits on the same grounds.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming that the tax notices-decisions should be annulled.
Case No. 240/29118/23 dated 31/10/2024
Case No. 522/5894/22 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of property rights to an apartment as personal private property of one of the spouses.
The court of first instance established that the property rights to the apartment were acquired by PERSON_1 with personal funds before marriage to PERSON_2, and recognized them as his private property. The appellate court upheld this decision. The main argument of the court…The role of the cassation instance court is that the **dispute is of an artificial nature**, as there is another case concerning the division of joint marital property where this issue should be addressed.
– The Supreme Court **overturned** the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and issued a new decision to deny the claim regarding the recognition of property rights as personal private property.
[Case No. 990/98/24 dated 30/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122743634)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the refusal to admit PERSON_1 to the qualification assessment and participation in the competition for vacant positions of judges of appellate courts.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court found that **PERSON_1 does not have the required seven-year cumulative experience in scientific work and professional legal practice**, as required by the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” The court emphasized that according to current legislation, **the period of work as a judge’s assistant cannot be counted towards scientific work experience**, as the duties of a judge’s assistant do not exclusively involve scientific and analytical activities. The plaintiff’s arguments about arithmetic errors in the HQCJ’s calculations are irrelevant for decision-making, as the main criterion is compliance with the requirements at the time of document submission.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court **denied the claims of PERSON_1**, recognizing the HQCJ’s decision as lawful due to the plaintiff’s lack of sufficient cumulative experience to participate in the competition for vacant judicial positions.
[Case No. 120/8436/24 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122743670)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: PERSON_1’s lawsuit against state authorities regarding the recognition of unlawful inaction in the matter of pension recalculation and payment, as well as the recovery of material damages.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court concluded that PERSON_1 did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline to file a lawsuit, as defined by Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that the plaintiff had a real opportunity to know the amount of their pension and could have timely filed a lawsuit but did not, indicating their **passive behavior**. The court also emphasized that the subject of the dispute is not identical to the subjects of disputes in other cases cited by the plaintiff.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed PERSON_1’s cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to return the lawsuit without consideration due to non-compliance with procedural deadlines for filing a lawsuit.
[Case No. 458/172/21 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122738192)
**Subject of the dispute**: Appeal against the verdict of the Turkiv District Court of Lviv Region and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal in a criminal proceeding concerning the conviction of a person for committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
**Main arguments of the court**: The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney, confirming the legality and validity of the conclusions of the lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that there are no grounds for overturning or amending the verdicts, based on the review of case materials and compliance with procedural norms during the case consideration.
**Court decision**: The cassation appeal was dismissed, the verdicts of the lower courts were left unchanged, and the ruling became effective upon announcement, being final and not subject to appeal.
This decision confirms the correctness of the actions of the lower courts and demonstrates the Supreme Court’s serious approach to assessing the legality of verdicts in criminal cases.
[Case No. 120/16342/23 dated 31/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122743610)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: PERSON_1 challenged the actions of the Department of Transport and Urban Mobility of the Vinnytsia City Council and its officials regarding the unlawful forwarding of an administrative offense ruling for enforcement to the state enforcement service before it became legally binding.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court recognized that the courts of first and appellate instances made **errors in applying procedural law norms**, deciding that the case was not subject to administrative court proceedings. The court emphasized that the defendants’ actions could have a **causal link** with negative legal consequences for the plaintiff, including the freezing of bank accounts and additional expenses, requiring their consideration in court.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court **overturned the decisions** of the previous instances and remanded the case for further consideration to the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court, recognizing the previous conclusions about the case’s non-jurisdiction to administrative courts as erroneous.
[Case No. 991/10700/23 dated 29/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122732426)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: The dispute concerned the application of sanctions and asset recovery due to facilitating the activities of an aggressor state.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The court based its decision on the presence of evidence confirming the defendants’ significant facilitation in financing aggressive actions through tax payments and material-technical support to the armed forces of the Russian Federation. The identified connections indicated the possibility of the defendants’ control over assets, creating grounds for their confiscation in favor of the state. The court also noted that interference with property rights is justified and proportionate due to the legitimate aim of protecting national interests during aggression against Ukraine.
3. **Court decision**: The court ruled to **recover assets** belonging to or controlled by the defendants in favor of the state, recognizing their activities as threatening to Ukraine’s national interests.
[Case No. 489/2860/22 dated 18/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122732724)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Determination of the children’s place of residence in connection with their relocation from Ukraine to Germany due to military actions.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts does not extend to this dispute, as at the time of filing the lawsuit, the case regarding the children’s place of residence was already being considered by a German court, which ruled in favor of the mother, confirming her right to determine the children’s place of residence. The court also considered that according to the norms of international private law, if a dispute has already been resolved by a foreign court, the lawsuit in Ukraine should be left without consideration.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and left the lawsuit without consideration, taking into account that the dispute over the children’s place of residence had already been resolved by a German court.
[Case No. 754/4144/22 dated 25/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122738110)
1. **Subject of the dispute**: A lawsuit to remove the right to inherit due to evasion of the duty to support the testator.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court noted that **the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence** to confirm the defendant’s evasion of providing assistance to the testator, nor that the testator was in a helpless state. The courts of first and appellate instances established that **there were no circumstances confirming these facts**, and also considered that the defendant maintained contact with the father remotely under the conditions of restrictions related to the occupation of the Luhansk territory.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left PERSON_1’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, establishing that there are no grounds for removing PERSON_2 from the right to inherit.
[Case No. 296/7795/21 dated 18/10/2024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/122732722)
The subject of the dispute is **compensation for damages** caused to PERSON_1 due to **illegal actions** by pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office, including moral and material damages.
The court, considering the case, was guided by the fact that **PERSON_1 had the right to compensation for moral damages** due to unlawful criminal prosecution, which lasted 63 months and 10 days. The court determined that the minimum amount of compensation should correspond to the minimum wage, but considering the long period of detention and trial, set the compensation for moral damages at 450,000 UAH. Regarding material damages, the court noted that **the plaintiff was not employed**, and therefore there are no grounds for compensation for lost profits.
The cassation court **left unchanged** the decision regarding moral damages but amended the reasoning part regarding compensation for material damages, confirming the absence of grounds for its recovery due to the lack of official employment at the time of detention.Case No. 9212/23 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: The plaintiff challenges the inaction of the head of the Chynadiyivka village council regarding the failure to assign her the eighth rank of a local government official since February 2, 2021.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff missed the one-month deadline to file a lawsuit, as she was informed about the order assigning the rank on February 8, 2021. The court also noted that the reasons provided by the plaintiff were not sufficient to restore the deadline, and the imposition of martial law or other circumstances did not affect the possibility of timely filing a lawsuit. The court emphasized that **the plaintiff should have been aware of the violation of her rights from the moment the order was signed**, and her arguments about unawareness are unfounded.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the ruling of the Zakarpattia District Administrative Court and the decision of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 420/21242/21 dated 31/10/2024
The **Supreme Court** concluded that the appellate court improperly closed the proceedings, as the claims in this case concern different aspects than in the previous decision.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal and remanded the case for **further consideration**.
Case No. 560/12365/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute**: INDIVIDUAL_1 challenges the actions of the Military Unit regarding the incorrect calculation of the indexation of his monetary allowance for the period from 2013 to 2018.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance concluded that, according to the provisions of Order No. 1078, from 2016, the base month for calculating indexation is January 2008, not January 2016, as the respondent believed. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the subject of this case is the correctness of the indexation calculation, which was not resolved in previous decisions.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Military Unit, upholding the decisions of the lower courts regarding the illegality of the actions of the military unit and obliging it to recalculate the indexation of INDIVIDUAL_1’s monetary allowance.
Case No. 120/5174/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute**: Military serviceman INDIVIDUAL_1 filed a lawsuit against the military unit to recognize the inaction in the non-payment of additional remuneration, provided by CMU Resolution No. 168, for participation in combat operations as unlawful.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance satisfied the claim, recognizing that the certificate of INDIVIDUAL_1’s participation in combat operations is proper evidence confirming the right to a remuneration of 100,000 UAH per month. The appellate court upheld this decision, noting that existing formal errors in the procedure of document transfer between military units cannot be grounds for depriving the plaintiff of due remuneration, as the certificate issued by the unit commander is sufficient confirmation. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, noting that all circumstances of the case and evidence were correctly assessed, and procedural violations do not affect the serviceman’s right to remuneration.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which satisfied INDIVIDUAL_1’s claim, recognizing his right to additional remuneration, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit.
Case No. 817/1871/17 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: An individual entrepreneur challenges tax notices-decisions by which the controlling authority determined his obligations regarding excise tax based on accusations of retail fuel trade.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The court of first instance, and subsequently the appellate court, concluded that **the controlling authority did not prove the fact of retail fuel trade**, as the individual entrepreneur INDIVIDUAL_1 engaged exclusively in wholesale trade through his buyers, which was confirmed by the terms of contracts and documents. The court also emphasized the improper drafting of the inspection report, which did not contain objective evidence of violations, and **additional agreements to the storage contract** confirmed the plaintiff’s mode of operation.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court **dismissed the cassation appeal**, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, confirming the legality of their conclusions.
Case No. 990/225/24 dated 30/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, which denied candidate INDIVIDUAL_1 a recommendation for appointment as a judge due to doubts about compliance with integrity and professional ethics criteria.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court, based on evidence, established that INDIVIDUAL_1 did not declare a Porsche Cayenne vehicle, ownership of which was recognized for her, raising justified doubts about the candidate’s compliance with integrity criteria. **The court also emphasized** that the HQCJ had grounds to believe that INDIVIDUAL_1 owned this vehicle, as **documents were provided** confirming her involvement in the purchase and registration of the car.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court denied the claim of INDIVIDUAL_1, upholding the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to refuse the recommendation for the judge’s appointment.
Case No. 340/3872/22 dated 01/11/2024
**Subject of the Dispute**: The dispute concerns the recognition as unlawful and the annulment of the decision of the Kirovohrad Regional Bar Council to refuse the issuance of a duplicate certificate of the right to practice law.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The Supreme Court determined that the appellate court improperly suspended the proceedings in the case, as it was not proven that the circumstances in another case are decisive for the consideration of this one. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not provide reasoned motives regarding the objective impossibility of considering the case before resolving another case, which **contradicts** the provisions of Article 236 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
**Court Decision**: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 440/9/24 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of the Dispute**: Dispute between INDIVIDUAL_1 and the military unit regarding the recognition of actions concerning the non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance for certain periods as unlawful and the obligation to make the appropriate payments.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court**: The cassation court indicated that **the lower courts incorrectly applied the law**, recognizing the lapse of the deadline for filing a claim regarding the payment of indexation for the period before July 19, 2022, while the norm of unlimited filing period applies to these legal relations. Moreover, the courts did not establish when the plaintiff became aware of the violation of his right, which is critically important for the correct calculation of the filing period.
3. **Court Decision**: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1, **annulled the decisions of the lower courts regarding the return of the claim** and remanded the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 320/14028/21 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns **challenging the decision of the Borshchahivka Village Council to approve the detailed plan of the territory for residential and public development**, which the plaintiff considers unlawful.
The appellate court justified its decision by stating that the approval of the plan was not supported by the necessary **environmental assessments** and could have a **negative impact on the environment**, violating the environmental rights of citizens according to the Aarhus Convention and the Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection”. The Supreme Court found these arguments justified and pointed out the non-compliance with the procedure concerning strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment.
The court **dismissed the cassation appeal** of the Borshchahivka Village Council, confirming the appellate court’s decision to satisfy INDIVIDUAL_1’s claim regarding the annulment of the challenged decision.
Case No. 260/3080/23 dated 31/10/2024
**Subject of the Dispute**: The plaintiff, INDIVIDUAL_1, challenged the actions of the respondent, who did not recalculate his monetary allowance, affecting the pension amount, based on changes established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the Ministry of Defense.
**Main Arguments of the Court**: The court…The Supreme Court recognized that departmental decisions, such as specific directives from the Ministry of Defense, do not constitute grounds for pension recalculation, as they are temporary in nature and not regulatory legal prescriptions. The Court emphasized that for pension recalculation, it is necessary for the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to adopt appropriate decisions that would officially change the components of monetary provision.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming that the actions of the respondent do not contradict the norms of the legislation.
Case No. 461/4340/22 dated 30/10/2024
**Subject of Dispute:** PERSON_1 challenges the actions of the Lviv Customs regarding the illegal seizure and placement of vehicles in a customs warehouse, seeking their return without payment for storage.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court of first instance determined that the subject of the claim is the challenge of actions by a public authority, which falls under the jurisdiction of administrative proceedings according to Article 19 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine (CAP). The appellate court supported this decision, indicating that the claims of PERSON_1, concerning the recognition of the customs’ actions as illegal, have a public-law nature and, accordingly, should be considered in an administrative order.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, confirming that the dispute should be considered under administrative jurisdiction and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
