Case No. 910/3313/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision recognizing the gas distribution company’s actions as abuse of monopoly position and imposing a fine.
Main Court Arguments: 1) AMC correctly determined that the company held a monopoly position in the gas distribution market within its territory; 2) The company’s unreasonable requirement for a test protocol under PM 081/39.434-2014 program when purchasing gas meters led to infringement of other meter manufacturers’ interests; 3) The imposed fine amount does not exceed legally established limits.
Court Decision: The gas distribution company’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the previous instance courts’ decisions refusing to invalidate the AMC decision remain unchanged.
Case No. 163/2298/23 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appeal of sentence for sexual abuse of minors.
The court in its decision was guided by: 1) The committed crime is serious and directed against minors’ sexual integrity; 2) Although the defendant has mild mental retardation, he was aware of his actions; 3) Mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, investigation assistance) allowed applying a milder punishment under Article 69 of the Criminal Code, but do not provide grounds for conditional release.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict sentencing the convicted to 3 years of restricted freedom with prohibition from working with minors for 3 years.
Case No. 686/2894/17 dated 05/11/2024
The appellate court, having examined evidence, established that the court apparatus head acted within her powers and in accordance with the Automated Court Document Management System Regulations, making system changes based on the actual case status and judge’s decisions. This is confirmed by the State Judicial Administration territorial department’s service inspection results, witness testimonies, and other evidence. The prosecutor’s office did not prove the existence of intent to commit a crime, which is a mandatory element of the offense.
Case No. 910/3498/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision recognizing a group of gas distribution companies’ actions as abuse of monopoly position and imposing a fine.
Main Court Arguments: 1) AMC correctly determined that the company group held a monopoly position in the natural gas distribution market within their territories. 2) The companies’ unreasonable requirement for a test protocol under PM 081/39.434-2014 for gas meter procurement participation infringed other meter manufacturers’ interests. 3) Such actions would be impossible under conditions of significant market competition.
Court Decision: The cassation appeal of JSC ‘Gas Distribution System Operator ‘Volynhaz’ was dismissed, and the challenged court decisions remain unchanged, as the companies’ actions were rightfully recognized as monopoly position abuse.
Case No. 910/7318/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the mere occurrence of anti-competitive coordinated actions during procurement is not sufficient grounds for invalidating the transaction – it must be proven that the transaction’s content and purpose deliberately contradict state interests. The prosecutor did not provide evidence of more favorable market price proposals or supplier price inflation.Commentary. Moreover, the respondent has already borne responsibility by paying a fine based on the AMCU decision.
Case No. 906/835/23 dated 07/11/2024:
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not comply with procedural requirements regarding the declaration of court expenses – did not submit a preliminary calculation of expenses in the first substantive claim, did not declare them before the end of judicial debates, and did not notify about the intention to submit evidence within 5 days after the court’s decision. Additionally, the legal assistance agreement, which is a mandatory proof for confirming such expenses, was not timely provided.
Case No. 459/782/22 dated 05/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person’s guilt was fully proven by victim and witness testimonies, forensic medical expert conclusions, and video surveillance footage. The court rejected the convicted person’s argument about necessary defense, as she herself provoked the conflict by dropping the victim’s goods on the ground. The court also established that the trial procedure was not violated, and the convicted person was properly notified about the appellate review.
Case No. 991/7253/23 dated 29/10/2024:
The subject of the dispute is challenging the VAKS Appellate Chamber’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings. The court established the presence of an exceptional legal issue or the need to deviate from a conclusion regarding the application of a legal norm in similar legal relations. Therefore, the panel of judges decided to transfer the case for consideration by the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, which has broader powers to resolve such issues. Based on the results of reviewing the cassation complaint, the court ordered the transfer of criminal proceedings to the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 638/7236/23 dated 06/11/2024:
The subject of the dispute is challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of collaborative activities. Since only the introductory and operative parts are provided without the motivational part, it is impossible to determine the arguments the court was guided by when rendering the decision. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance, while choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 909/1104/23 dated 07/11/2024:
The court established that the AMCU proved the existence of coordinated actions between bidders through: common activity environment, telephone connections, shared IP address usage, synchronicity of actions, identical document formatting features, and pricing proposal formation. All these facts collectively cannot be a random coincidence.
Case No. 465/3106/17 dated 31/10/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that sentencing the convicted person by applying Articles 69, 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (milder punishment and exemption from serving with probation) is justified given the mitigating circumstances – sincere repentance, partial damage compensation, and positive personal characteristics. At the same time, the court recognized that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of evidence regarding the accomplice’s involvement in the crime and did not sufficiently motivate its decision.Case No. 577/1494/21 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding conviction for a robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the convicted PERSON_6 recruited an accomplice PERSON_8 to commit a robbery, developed the crime plan and provided tools; 2) the fact that PERSON_8 cooperated with law enforcement agencies does not affect the qualification of PERSON_6’s actions, as his intent was directed at committing a crime by a group of persons; 3) there are no grounds for applying a milder punishment, as mitigating circumstances do not significantly reduce the degree of crime severity. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced PERSON_6 to 7 years of imprisonment for robbery.
Case No. 761/21443/22 dated 05/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns appealing the appellate court’s ruling on returning an appeal filed after the deadline. The court was guided by the fact that the appeal was filed after the expiration of the 5-day appeal period (December 13 instead of the deadline of December 11, 2023). The applicants did not file a motion to restore the missed deadline, as provided by procedural law. The court also took into account that the appealed ruling was issued with the summons of the applicants, therefore the appeal period was calculated from the day of its announcement. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal, as it met the legal requirements.
Case No. 638/6596/22 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the Kharkiv Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for illegal weapons handling, illegal drug possession, and extortion. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the introductory and operative parts, as the full text of the decision will be compiled later. However, from the available text, it is evident that the Supreme Court panel reviewed the defense counsel’s cassation complaint and found no grounds for its satisfaction. The Supreme Court upheld the Kharkiv Appellate Court’s verdict dated May 2, 2024, and left the defense counsel’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 592/18374/18 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – defense counsel’s appeal of court decisions in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of attempted theft, theft, robbery, and threat of violence against a law enforcement officer. Since only the operative part is provided, the court does not cite arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for partial satisfaction of the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, indicating significant violations in the appealed appellate court decision. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, revoked the Sumy Appellate Court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 205/1906/18 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Cassation review of the verdict against a person convicted of theft and robbery. Main arguments of the court: The court established the need to reclassify one of the imputed acts from attempted theft (Part 3, Article 15, Part 3, Article 185 of the Criminal Code) to violation of housing inviolability (Part 1, Article 162 of the Criminal Code). The court applied the statute of limitations for this crime and closed the proceedings in this part. For other crimes (theft and robbery), the court left the punishment unchanged, determining the final punishment.Punishment by absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one.
Court Decision: The defense counsel’s cassation appeal was left unsatisfied, but the verdict was modified in terms of qualification of one of the acts with the final punishment of imprisonment for 4 years and 1 month.
Case No. 759/11185/22 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of violating traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Unfortunately, since only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided, it is impossible to analyze the arguments used by the court. In this case, one can only state that the Supreme Court found grounds for canceling the appellate instance’s decision.
Based on the results of reviewing the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s requirements, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, and referred the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 925/740/24 dated 07/11/2024
The appellate court, while canceling the first instance court’s ruling on securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a real threat of non-execution of a future court decision, but only expressed a presumption about such a possibility. An important argument was that the debtor did not dispute the existence of the main debt and made partial payments, which indicates an absence of evasion from fulfilling obligations.
Case No. 917/1876/23 dated 07/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the respondent did not prove the fact of consumer interference with measuring equipment by appropriate evidence, particularly an expert examination, which is mandatory in such cases. The court also established that the act of transferring measuring means for examination did not contain mandatory details provided by the Retail Electricity Market Rules – a list of research questions and the final term for document submission.
Case No. 334/5244/23 dated 04/09/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the mother provided evidence of systematic domestic violence by the father (medical certificates, statements to the gendarmerie); 2) there is a serious risk of physical and mental harm to the child if returned to France due to the father’s alcohol addiction and aggressive behavior; 3) the child has already adapted in Ukraine, has a close emotional connection with the mother, and her return to France would create a stressful situation and negatively affect her development.
Case No. 671/1742/23 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing lower instance court decisions regarding a person accused of violating traffic safety rules (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments on the merits of the case. However, the decision shows that both the district and appellate courts made a certain decision regarding PERSON_8, which the victim’s representative tried to appeal in cassation. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation appeal, found no grounds for its satisfaction.
The Supreme Court left the previous instance courts’ decisions unchanged and the victim’s representative’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 335/3277/17 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing an acquittal regarding an official of the Municipal Enterprise “Capital Construction Management”Case No. 910/16911/20 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages and penalty sanctions for poor-quality repair of locomotive crankshafts during the warranty period.
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the following:
1) Ukrzaliznytsia did not prove the fact of proper notification of the repair executor about the identified deficiencies and did not provide an opportunity to participate in drawing up complaint acts;
2) complaint acts drawn up unilaterally in violation of the established procedure cannot be considered proper evidence of poor-quality repair;
3) the plaintiff did not prove that the crankshaft defects arose specifically due to improper performance of repair work, rather than for other reasons.
The court rejected Ukrzaliznytsia’s claim for recovery of damages and penalties, and partially satisfied the counterclaim for recovery of penalties for late payment of performed work.
Case No. 873/104/24 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Issuance of an order for forced execution of an arbitration court decision on debt recovery under a goods supply contract.
The court was guided by the following:
1) A valid arbitration agreement was concluded between the parties in the form of a clause in the supply contract;
2) LLC ‘NOTAPS Company’ acquired the right of claim under the contract based on a claim assignment agreement;
3) There are no legal grounds for refusing to issue an order for forced execution of the arbitration court decision, and issues regarding execution should be resolved at the stage of enforcement proceedings.
The Supreme Court cancelled the first instance court ruling and satisfied the application for issuing an order for forced execution of the arbitration court decision.
Case No. 225/7530/21 dated 15/10/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the following:
1) The crimes are classified as especially serious, with two victims;
2) The juvenile convict played an active role in the murders, rather than simply being under the influence of an adult accomplice;
3) When sentencing, both mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, active assistance in solving crimes, minor age) and aggravating circumstances (alcohol intoxication, commission of crime by a group of persons) were taken into account.
Case No. 205/1906/18 dated 05/11/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the following:
1) The convict’s guilt is confirmed by his own testimony and other evidence;
2) The imposed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crimes and the person of the convict;
3) Due to changes in legislation regarding the amount of material damage, actions in one episode require reclassification from theft to illegal entry into a dwelling.
Case No. 672/1420/17 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the verdictRegarding the appellate court’s decision on the conviction of a person for causing a fatal traffic accident while intoxicated. The court established that evidence of the driver’s intoxication (blood sampling protocol and expert conclusion) is admissible, as it was obtained in compliance with procedural law. Specifically, blood samples were taken based on a prosecutor’s resolution, in the presence of witnesses and a medical professional, which is confirmed by their testimonies. Inaccuracies in the protocol regarding the time of its compilation were resolved by questioning witnesses in court. Since the fact of alcohol intoxication was proven, the court rightfully did not apply the amnesty law to the convicted person. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and rejected the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 759/8667/21 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute – the legality of the appellate court’s closure of criminal proceedings against a person accused of hooliganism with weapon use. The cassation instance court found that the appellate court violated the principle of direct evidence examination, as it did not investigate all evidence referenced by the first instance court (did not interrogate the victim, did not examine the expert conclusion and crime scene investigation protocols). The appellate court also did not establish whether there was a real threat to the accused’s life, who was in the company of three acquaintances, and whether the use of a firearm in a public place was justified. Moreover, the court did not take into account that the conflict occurred in a public place at night, where the accused fired two shots with a traumatic weapon.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 761/21443/22 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute concerns challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning an appeal filed after the deadline. The court was guided by the fact that the appeal was filed after the 5-day appeal period (December 7 instead of the deadline of November 30), and the applicants did not file a motion to restore the missed deadline. Importantly, the investigating judge’s ruling was issued with the applicants’ summons, so the appeal period was calculated from the day of its announcement. The court also considered that the norm for returning an appeal in such a case is imperative and does not provide alternatives.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal unchanged and rejected the cassation appeal.
Case No. 296/6284/17 dated 22/10/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding conviction for theft in especially large amounts and illegal seizure of documents. The cassation instance court found that the appellate court did not conduct a proper analysis of defense arguments, particularly regarding violation of the right to defense after detention, violation of vehicle search procedure, improper confirmation of stolen property value, and non-disclosure of all physical evidence to the defense side. The appellate court did not provide comprehensive answers to these important procedural violations and did not conduct proper evidence assessment.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate court.
Case No. 459/782/22 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_6, accused of committing criminal offensesCase No. 164/281/24 dated 05/11/2024 (Charge under Part 1, 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code – intentional minor bodily injury). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text it is evident that the Supreme Court reviewed the cassation appeal of the convicted person in full at an open court hearing with the participation of all parties to the proceedings, including the convicted person and their defender.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the decisions of the previous courts unchanged and the cassation appeal of the convicted person without satisfaction.
Case No. 643/9869/20 dated 04/11/2024 (Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court ruling in a case of traffic safety rules violation (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)). Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision but notes that the full text will be announced later. It is important to note that the case was considered with the participation of the prosecutor and the defendant (the latter in video conference mode).
The Supreme Court decided to leave the ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 908/1900/23 dated 08/11/2024: The appellate court suspended the proceedings because the respondent-guarantor provided a certificate of being in a volunteer formation of DUK TG “Sapsan”. However, the Supreme Court established that the volunteer formation is not a military formation in the legal sense, and the certificate was issued almost a year ago and does not confirm the current status of the respondent. Moreover, the military unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported that such a volunteer formation was not created and does not exist.
Case No. 924/708/23 dated 29/10/2024: The court noted that the previous courts did not properly assess the city council’s decision that changed the land plot’s purpose code from ‘12.11 for placement and operation of road service facilities’ to ‘12.08 for placement and operation of additional transport service buildings and structures’, which could have affected the rental fee. They also did not properly evaluate whether the method of protection chosen by the prosecutor was effective given the subject and grounds of the claim.
Case No. 164/281/24 dated 05/11/2024 (Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court ruling on returning the prosecutor’s appeal regarding a home arrest preventive measure). The court found that the appellate court incorrectly considered the appeal submission deadline missed, relying only on the date of receipt by the court. In fact, the prosecutor submitted the appeal in a timely manner on February 13, 2024, through the Ukrposhta branch, which is confirmed by relevant documents. The appellate court did not properly verify the actual date of appeal submission, thereby violating the prosecutor’s right to appeal the court decision.
The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and canceled the appellate court ruling.
