Case No. 991/4164/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute cannot be determined, as only the introductory and operative parts of the court decision are provided without the descriptive and motivational parts. The court does not provide arguments for the decision made, as the motivational part is absent from the provided text. The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the appeal of lawyer Shpak V.I. unsatisfied and left unchanged the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated January 19, 2024.
Case No. 760/7205/22 dated 01/11/2024
The court in its decision relied on the following: 1) attempts to purchase housing at a lower price were unsuccessful due to the lack of market offerings; 2) a repeated extended price monitoring conducted by the Main Directorate of Economic Control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, taking into account housing prices from previous years, substantiated the established price; 3) legislation does not contain a clear methodology for monitoring housing costs, therefore, it cannot be argued that the procedure was violated.
Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is recognition and permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery of 263,301.64 euros from a Ukrainian company in favor of a Romanian company. Unfortunately, the motivational part of the decision is absent from the provided text, as this is only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution. Therefore, it is impossible to analyze the arguments used by the court. The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and refused to satisfy the appeal of LLC “Naftogazmontazh”.
Case No. 645/5106/21 dated 31/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff provided proper evidence of legal assistance expenses (contract, service acceptance certificate, bank receipts). At the same time, the court noted that the mere fact of paying for a lawyer’s services after the completion of criminal proceedings cannot be a basis for refusal of compensation, as the services were actually provided during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. The court also took into account the prolonged period of criminal prosecution (over 3.5 years).
Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024
The court rejected the debtor’s arguments that the existence of bankruptcy proceedings for the claimant in Romania impedes the enforcement of the arbitration decision in Ukraine. The court noted that legislation does not provide for such restrictions, and the decision of international arbitration is mandatory for execution if there are no clearly defined legal grounds for refusal. The court also emphasized that the arbitration decision does not violate the public order of Ukraine, as it concerns a private law dispute and does not affect the fundamental principles of the state.
Case No. 922/813/21 dated 16/10/2024
[The text appears to be cut off]The appellate instance recognized that the prosecutor had the right to independently file a lawsuit in the interests of the state, since the Kharkiv City Council, as a body authorized to protect the interests of the community, itself violated these interests by choosing an illegal method of property privatization through purchase by the tenant without a competitive tender. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that when a local self-government body acts contrary to the law and the interests of the people, the prosecutor has the right to file a lawsuit independently, and such a body acquires the status of a defendant.
Case No. 912/3258/21 dated 29/10/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of legal assistance costs must be proportionate to the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, and the volume of services provided. The court took into account that the case is not complex, as it concerns a typical dispute over the performance of contractual obligations. The court also noted that it has the right to independently assess the reasonableness and validity of the claimed legal expenses, even if the opposing party did not request their reduction.
Case No. 916/3599/23 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the landlord’s unilateral termination of the non-residential building lease agreement and related claims. The appellate court, while canceling the first instance court’s decision, proceeded from the fact that the tenant (the Company) did not pay rent for more than three consecutive months (from 24.01.2022 to 23.01.2023), which, in accordance with Article 782 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, gave the landlord (the Company) the right to unilateral termination of the contract. The court noted that the annual procedure for rent payment provided in the contract does not deprive the landlord of such a right. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, indicating that Article 782 of the Civil Code of Ukraine does not contain restrictions on the frequency of rent payment. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, which recognized the landlord’s unilateral termination of the lease agreement due to non-payment of rent for an extended period as lawful.
Case No. 873/103/24 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: issuance of an order for forced execution of an arbitration court decision on recovery of penalty sanctions under a supply agreement. The first instance court refused to issue the order, believing that the new creditor (LLC “Company “NOTAPS”) did not acquire the right to apply to the arbitration court, as only the right to claim penalty sanctions, but not the principal debt, was assigned to it. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the law does not prohibit assigning the right to claim only penalty sanctions, and the validity of the assignment agreement was not disputed by anyone. The court also established the absence of legal grounds for refusing to issue an order to enforce the arbitration court decision. The Supreme Court canceled the first instance court’s ruling and ordered the issuance of an order for forced execution of the arbitration court decision.Translation of the Ukrainian legal text into English:
Regarding the court’s decision on collecting 4,217.37 UAH in penalty sanctions and 143.26 UAH in court expenses.
Case No. 910/8328/23 (757/51177/21-ц) dated 22/10/2024
The court established that the contract was signed by a person (PERSON_1) who did not have the authority to represent the property owner – LLC “Accent-Novotel”. At the time of contract execution, PERSON_1 was not an authorized representative of the company, did not have a power of attorney, and had no other documents confirming their right to act on behalf of the property owner. The court also noted the absence of evidence of actual performance of the contract terms by the parties.
Case No. 921/227/20 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Approval of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance of LLC “Mriya Agroholding” in the bankruptcy case. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the liquidator properly performed all necessary actions during the liquidation procedure – conducted inventory of property, formed the liquidation mass, realized available assets, took measures to collect accounts receivable and bring former managers to subsidiary liability. Meanwhile, the sole creditor (PJSC “Prominvestbank”) did not exercise its right to independently file claims against third parties and did not challenge the liquidator’s actions during the procedure. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts approving the liquidator’s report, liquidation balance, and closing the bankruptcy proceedings of LLC “Mriya Agroholding”.
Case No. 910/72/24 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Collection of penalties and inflation losses under a natural gas transportation agreement amounting to 1.36 billion UAH. Main court arguments: 1) The court recognized that reducing the penalty amount is the court’s right, exercised considering specific case circumstances; 2) When resolving the penalty reduction issue, the court considered that the defendant paid the principal debt, disputed relations arose during martial law, and the financial condition of both parties; 3) The court rejected the complainants’ arguments about establishing uniform criteria for penalty reduction, as this issue should be resolved individually in each case. Court decision: The Supreme Court closed cassation proceedings on the complaint of NAK “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and denied the cassation complaint of LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”, maintaining the previous instances’ decision on partial claim satisfaction and 50% penalty reduction.
Case No. 906/291/22 dated 31/10/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that the amount of lawyer service expenses must be proportionate to the case complexity, time spent, volume of services provided, and the case’s significance for the party. The court considered the complexity level of legal relations, the volume of prepared documents, and the representative’s participation in four court hearings. It was established that the claimed amount of 20,000 UAHCase No. 910/2248/23 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the refusal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to consider the application by NEC ‘Ukrenergo’ regarding a violation of economic competition legislation. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the AMCU letter dated 01.11.2022 is essentially a decision to refuse to consider the case; 2) the plaintiff missed the two-month period for appealing this decision, which is a preclusive term and cannot be renewed; 3) missing the term is an independent ground for dismissing the claim regardless of the reasons for the missed term. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts to reject NEC ‘Ukrenergo’s claim.
Case No. 917/273/20 dated 23/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor challenging a city council’s decision to transfer a land plot for lease and declaring the land lease agreement invalid. The court established that the prosecutor has the right to file a claim as an independent plaintiff when a local self-government body (in this case, the city council) itself violated state interests through its actions. In this case, such a body must be a defendant, not a plaintiff, as it is not interested in satisfying the claim. The court also noted that the prosecutor properly substantiated the grounds for representing state interests. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower courts that left the prosecutor’s claim unexamined and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 913/410/23 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Declaring a food procurement contract invalid and recovering funds received under this contract due to anti-competitive coordinated actions by bidders. Main arguments of the court: 1) Previous instance courts incorrectly applied norms about terms for applying administrative and economic sanctions to legal relations regarding declaring a transaction invalid that contradicts state interests. 2) There was no proper investigation of intent in the bidder’s actions and how exactly the contract contradicted state interests. 3) The actual nature of the disputed legal relations was not established, and not all arguments of the parties were evaluated. Court decision: Cancel decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 922/376/18 dated 29/10/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the defendant (KP ‘Kharkivvodokanal’) met the criteria of a 1st voltage class consumer; 2) the plaintiff (JSC ‘Kharkivoblenergo’) correctly recalculated the electricity cost by applying tariffs for the 1st voltage class; 3) the correctness of calculations was confirmed by forensic expert opinions.
Case No. 917/53/21 dated 31/10/2024
