Case No. 671/1742/23 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision to release a bus driver from criminal liability who caused a traffic accident with passenger injuries. The court was guided by the fact that the accused sincerely repented, which is confirmed by his behavior – he fully admitted guilt, voluntarily compensated the victims, including paying 35,000 UAH to one of the victims. The court also took into account that the labor collective of 50 people where the accused works submitted a petition to take him on bail, which was supported by the absolute majority of employees. The fact that the company’s manager is the accused’s brother, in the court’s opinion, does not affect the validity of the decision, since the person is transferred on bail to the collective. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances on releasing the accused from criminal liability with transfer to the labor collective’s bail.
Case No. 509/5604/21 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the share in the LLC’s authorized capital was acquired by the husband before marriage in 1997 at his own expense, therefore the disputed real estate received by him in 2014 when leaving the company in exchange for returning his share is his personal property. The court also noted that state registration of ownership rights to this property during the marriage only certifies the already acquired right, and is not a basis for its acquisition.
Case No. 128/838/23 dated 23/10/2024
The cassation instance court indicated that securing a claim by prohibiting property alienation is legitimate even in cases with non-property claims if there is a risk of complicating the execution of a future court decision. Failure to take such measures may lead to alienation of disputed property in favor of other persons, which will complicate the protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The court also emphasized that claim security is a temporary restriction of the defendant’s rights in the interests of future execution of a court decision.
Case No. 638/6596/22 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s verdict, which deprived the convicted person of the possibility of conditional release from serving a sentence for illegal drug possession, carrying a cold weapon, and coercion to fulfill civil obligations. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person committed several serious offenses, in particular threatening the victim with a pneumatic pistol and causing bodily injuries while extorting a debt. The court took into account the severity of the committed crimes and data about the perpetrator’s personality, recognizing that conditional release from serving the sentence is impossible in this case. The absence of claims from the victim is not decisive in sentencing. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s verdict, which sentenced PERSON_7 to 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 725/7510/22 dated 06/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the debtor’s complaint regarding the state executor’s resolution from 2016 was filed with an expired deadline andwithout a petition for its renewal, and therefore should be left without consideration. Regarding the private executor’s resolution from 2022, the courts did not clarify when the debtor learned about its issuance and whether the appeal period was observed, therefore this part of the case requires a new review.
Case No. 354/681/15-ц dated 06/11/2024
The court established that the disputed land plot was illegally withdrawn from state ownership, as the decision to remove it from the forest fund and change its intended purpose was not made, and the village council’s decision on transfer to private ownership was forged, which is confirmed by a criminal case verdict. It has also been proven that this plot was in permanent use by the state forestry enterprise based on a state act.
Case No. 521/7795/22 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that for pedagogical workers called up for military service during mobilization, not only their workplace and position are preserved, but also their average earnings – in accordance with the special norm of the Law “On Education”. Although the general norm of the Labor Code no longer provides for preservation of average earnings, the special norm takes precedence over the general one. The court also took into account that the employer violated the employee’s labor rights, which provides grounds for compensation of moral damage.
Case No. 643/23037/21 dated 06/11/2024
The court took into account that after the Law of Ukraine No. 3886-IX dated 18.07.2024 came into force, the threshold of stolen property value for qualifying a crime under Article 185 of the Criminal Code was increased – from 0.2 to 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (which in 2021 was 2,270 UAH). Since the value of stolen property in each episode did not exceed this amount, the defendant’s actions fall under administrative responsibility under Article 51 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, not criminal. The law that mitigates responsibility has retroactive effect.
Case No. 161/10938/22 dated 09/10/2024
When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that when resolving a dispute regarding a child’s place of residence, primary attention should be paid to the child’s best interests, not the parents’ interests. Previous instance courts did not take into account that the child has been living with the father in a stable environment for a long time, has established social connections, did not clarify the child’s psycho-emotional state, and did not hear the child’s opinion, which is important for making a decision.
Case No. 464/242/23 dated 06/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on sentencing a person who committed robbery during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 70 of the Criminal Code instead of Article 71 when imposing the final punishment. According to the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, since the new crime was committed after the previous verdict was issued (even though it was partially revoked on appeal), the rules for sentencing under the totality of verdicts should have been applied. The court also took into account the need to prevent the risk of the defendant’s concealment.Supreme Court Satisfied the Prosecutor’s Cassation Appeal, Cancelled the Appellate Court’s Ruling and Assigned a New Case Review.
Case No. 638/7236/23 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the Court Verdict Regarding a Person Accused of Collaborative Activities During the Occupation of Izium, Specifically Organizing a Postal Enterprise and Spreading Propaganda Materials. The Cassation Instance Court Established that the Appellate Court Did Not Provide Proper Assessment of All Defense Arguments, Including: Absence of the Accused’s Access to Information about Criminalization of Collaborative Activities, Illegality of Evidence Obtaining, Inadmissibility of Evidence from Another Criminal Proceedings, and Other Important Case Aspects. The Legality of the First Instance Court Composition Was Not Properly Examined. The Supreme Court Cancelled the Appellate Court’s Ruling and Referred the Case for a New Appellate Review, Simultaneously Choosing a Preventive Measure for the Accused in the Form of Detention for 60 Days.
Case No. 759/4294/21 dated 31/10/2024
The Cassation Instance Court Established that the Appellate Court Committed Significant Procedural Law Violations by Refusing to Interrogate a Witness from the Permit System, Who Could Provide Important Explanations Regarding Weapon Permit Issuance Procedures. The Appellate Court Also Failed to Provide Proper Substantiation of Its Conclusions and Did Not Give Comprehensive Answers to the Prosecutor’s Arguments, Thus Violating the Principle of Adversarial Proceedings.
Case No. 754/12067/21 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Review of Judicial Decisions in a Case of Driving a Vehicle While Under Narcotic Intoxication Based on a European Court of Human Rights Decision. The Court Was Guided by the ECHR’s Establishment of a Violation of the Right to Access Higher Instance Courts, as the Appellate Court Unreasonably Refused to Restore the Appeal Deadline. Importantly, the Case Materials Lack Evidence of Proper Notification of the Person about Case Consideration and Delivery of the First Instance Court’s Ruling Copy. The Court Also Considered that the Appellate Appeal Was Filed Two Days after Familiarization with Case Materials, Indicating No Delay from the Applicant. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Partially Satisfied the Application – Cancelled the Appellate Court’s Ruling and Referred the Case for a New Appellate Review.
Case No. 607/7026/22 dated 06/11/2024
The Court Was Guided by the Fact that to Recognize Personal Property of One Spouse as Joint Shared Property, Two Conditions Are Necessary: Significant Increase in Property Value and Confirmation that Such Increase Occurred through Joint Labor or Monetary Expenses of the Spouses. The Plaintiff Did Not Provide Evidence of Financial or Labor Contributions to House Reconstruction, and the Mere Fact of Being Married Is Not a Basis for Recognizing Property as Shared.
Case No. 587/288/18 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the First Instance Court Verdict and Appellate Court Ruling in Criminal Proceedings Regarding…
