Case No. 160/15303/22 dated 19/11/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) amendments to Article 119 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which canceled the preservation of average earnings for servicemen at their workplace, are lawful and do not violate constitutional rights; 2) the state has the right to redistribute expenditures to maintain a balance of societal interests, especially under martial law conditions; 3) the disputed legal relations are continuing, therefore the new version of the law applies from the moment it entered into force.
Case No. 824/20/23 dated 14/11/2024
The court established that the state executor acted lawfully because: 1) the absence of scanned document copies in the electronic system does not indicate the absence of original documents; 2) the director of the collecting company had proper powers to submit applications for initiating enforcement proceedings, confirmed by an extract from the Swiss trade register; 3) the debtor did not provide evidence of limitations on the company director’s powers.
Case No. 905/291/23 (905/717/24) dated 19/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legitimacy of closing appellate proceedings on a complaint from a person who was not a party to the case about invalidating a claim assignment agreement. The court was guided by the principle that a person who did not participate in the case may appeal a court decision only if the court directly resolved issues regarding their rights and obligations. Such a connection must be obvious and unconditional, not probable. In this case, the court established that neither the reasoning nor the operative part of the contested decision contained any conclusions about the complainant’s rights and obligations. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on closing the appellate proceedings, as the complainant did not prove that the contested decision directly concerned their rights and obligations.
Case No. 906/1378/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of storing the disputed fuel specifically in tank No. 46, which was destroyed by a rocket strike. In particular, mandatory documentation was not provided in accordance with Instruction No. 281 (petroleum products accounting book in form No. 31-NP). The Chamber of Commerce certificate on force majeure also did not contain specific data about the defendant’s fuel being located in the destroyed tank.
Case No. Б26/161-09 (904/4631/22) dated 14/11/2024
The court established that the defendants indeed used the building without legal grounds after its recovery into the plaintiff’s ownership by court decision. However, the courts rejected the claim, believing that the expert valuation of rental cost was incorrect – the expert calculated the maximum possible market rental value for office premises, not the actual rental value for a medical facility. The Supreme Court indicated that the courts should have appointed a new expert examination to correctly determine the debt amount, rather than simply rejecting the claim.
Case No. 914/2182/23 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the Lviv City Council’s requirement to compel TDV “Plastyk” to vacate a land plot occupied without authorization after the lease agreement’s expiration. The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that using a land plot without a signed additional agreement on lease extension constitutes unauthorized land occupation, even if the lease…Tenant pays rent. The court noted that the tenant had the opportunity to protect their right through court by demanding the conclusion of an additional agreement but did not use this opportunity. Reference to “legitimate expectations” is not a basis for continuing to use the land plot without establishing documents. The Supreme Court satisfied the claim and obliged TDV “Plastyk” to return the land plot to the Lviv City Council with the dismantling of the metal fence.
Case No. 990/36/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court established that sanctions were applied lawfully because: 1) there were sufficient grounds to believe that the person poses a threat to Ukraine’s national security due to involvement in terrorist activities, confirmed by SBU and NABU materials; 2) the change in sanctions formulation was due to the adoption of a new law that expanded their scope; 3) interference with property rights is proportional and temporary (10 years instead of an indefinite restriction).
Case No. 920/1092/22 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that to impose joint liability on the manager, it is necessary to prove the existence of insolvency threat during their management of the company. However, financial statements showed that the debtor’s assets significantly exceeded its liabilities – accounts receivable were 71.7 million UAH against accounts payable of 14.5 million UAH. The court also took into account that financial assistance provided to another company in the amount of 63.9 million UAH was fully returned to the debtor.
Case No. 359/13106/21 dated 13/11/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) there was insufficient evidence that the propeller belonged to military-purpose goods; 2) there was no proof of criminal intent in the manager’s actions, as they took measures to clarify the need for permits; 3) the company was officially registered as an entity for international transfer of goods, which indicates the manager’s understanding of established rules.
Case No. 580/12300/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a similar dispute between the same parties is already being considered in the commercial court. The main requirement in both cases is recognizing the military administration’s order as unlawful, and all other requirements are derivative. Although the subject composition of the cases differs somewhat, this does not change their essential identity.
Case No. 9901/315/21 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging the President of Ukraine’s decrees on applying personal sanctions to a Russian Federation citizen. The court reviewed the case regarding the legality of applying restrictive measures to RF citizen PERSON_1 based on NSDC Ukraine decisions from May 14 and October 5, 2021. The plaintiff attempted to challenge their inclusion in sanction lists, but the court recognized that sanctions were imposed in compliance with the established procedure and within the powers of the relevant authorities. The court considered that applying personal sanctions is a tool for protecting Ukraine’s national interests. Based on the case review, the Supreme Court completely denied the plaintiff’s claims, keeping the sanctions against the plaintiff in force.
Case No. 910/16656/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: cancellation of a private notary’s decision on state registration of land plot lease rights for a construction company.In making its decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the disputed land plot is in communal ownership, and the Kyiv City Council has the authority to dispose of it and protect the owner’s rights; 2) the plaintiff only intends to obtain the plot for lease, which does not provide him with a right of protection that only the owner or a person with property rights to the property has; 3) canceling the lease registration for the defendant will not restore the plaintiff’s rights, since he is registered as having ownership only for one section of an unfinished construction object, not the entire object. Court decision: the claim was denied.
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the fact that the private executor acted lawfully, as it was not proven that at the moment of executing the actions, he was aware of the ruling on postponement of execution. The court established that immediately after becoming familiar with the postponement ruling (which was sent via email), the executor stopped the enforcement proceedings. At the same time, the mere fact of imposing an arrest on the property did not violate the debtor’s rights, as according to legislation, suspension of enforcement proceedings is not grounds for canceling previously taken measures for compulsory execution of the decision.
The court was guided by the fact that minor children who are assigned a pension due to loss of breadwinner are non-working pensioners due to their incapacity. They are entitled to an increase in pension of two subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, provided they live in a radioactively contaminated territory. Such increase is compensation for the risk of health loss due to the Chornobyl disaster, regardless of the presence of other benefits.
The court denied the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that the disputed buildings are architectural monuments of national significance ‘Kochubei House’ and ‘Treasury’. The court established that the building areas do not match – the educational building area is 761.1 sq.m, while the ‘Kochubei House’ area according to the monument’s passport is 529.1 sq.m. The addresses of the objects also differ, and there are no documents confirming the identity of the transferred buildings with architectural monuments.
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal of the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of intentional murder and rape. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the circumstances of the case, it is evident that these are serious criminal offenses – intentional murder with aggravating circumstances (paragraphs 4, 6, 10 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code) and rape (part 5 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code). The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate court.
The subject of the dispute is appealing the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to renew the term for appealing the verdict in a criminal case. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court violated the convicted person’s right to defense, as: 1) it did not consider her motion for personal participation in the court session, despite her hearing impairment; 2) conducted the meeting in video conference mode without proper justification1) did not provide a reasoned explanation for such a decision; 2) did not ensure that the convicted person could fully participate in the case review due to her hearing problems. These violations significantly influenced the reasonableness of the adopted decision. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 707/1703/21 dated 12/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns appealing a court verdict in which the director of a state institution was found guilty of official forgery and acquitted of embezzlement charges, and an entrepreneur was acquitted of complicity in these crimes. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the director’s guilt in official forgery was proven, as he signed work completion certificates, knowing that the work was not completed. At the same time, the embezzlement charges were refuted because the representative of the injured party had no claims, witnesses confirmed the work performance, and expert examinations established that repair work was completed in full. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments about procedural violations during the pre-trial investigation as unfounded. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal verdict regarding embezzlement and the verdict of finding guilt in official forgery, rejecting cassation appeals from both the prosecutor and the defense.
Case No. 278/2729/20 dated 29/10/2024
The court was guided by the following arguments: testimony of forestry workers who discovered the accused at the site of illegal logging; a protocol of the crime scene examination, which recorded 9 freshly cut trees; documents confirming the land plot’s belonging to the forestry; and an expert opinion on the amount of damage caused. The court found the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence unfounded, as all procedural actions were carried out in compliance with legal requirements.
Case No. 917/541/24 dated 12/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not timely consider the individual entrepreneur’s application regarding the distribution of court expenses and did not evaluate the provided evidence concerning the amount of legal assistance costs. The court also noted that failure to submit a preliminary calculation of court expenses is not a mandatory basis for refusing their reimbursement, as this right of the court has a discretionary nature.
Case No. 918/799/23 dated 12/11/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the contract violations cited by the prosecutor (partial water absence in the reservoir, reed overgrowth, absence of coastal protection zone boundary markers) are not significant and do not deprive the lessor of what they expected when concluding the contracts. The court also took into account that the lessee is a full-system fish farm that conducts research activities and makes a significant contribution to the development of Ukraine’s fish industry.
Case No. 545/2419/19 dated 22/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of a verdict against a person accused of illegal production and storage of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the accused was a drug-dependent person and produced drugs for personal use, not for sale; 2) items seized during the search were ordinary laboratory glassware that cannot be considered special equipment for drug production; 3) the quantity of seized narcotic substances was not large or especially large, and they were not packagedFor sale. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal – modified the verdict only in terms of excluding additional punishment in the form of property confiscation, since such punishment cannot be applied when exempted from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 910/7131/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court established that the main debt was repaid by the defendant during the case consideration, therefore the proceedings in this part were closed. Regarding inflation losses and 3% per annum – the court indicated that the lack of funds from the debtor and references to non-payment by other market participants do not exempt him from liability for violation of monetary obligations. The court also noted that the right to recover inflation losses and 3% per annum are minimum guarantees for protecting the creditor’s interests.
Case No. 440/12257/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the preferential old-age pension, appointed under Law No. 1788-XII, is not a separate type of pension provision, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of retirement age) for appointing an old-age pension. Since such a pension is appointed and paid in the procedure and under the conditions of Law No. 1058-IV, persons receiving it do not have the right to re-appointment of the same type of pension (old-age pension) on general grounds after reaching retirement age.
Case No. 200/653/24 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the preferential old-age pension, appointed under Law No. 1788-XII, is not a separate type of pension, but only provides preferential conditions for appointing an old-age pension by reducing the retirement age. Importantly, the Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and formulated a new conclusion that persons receiving a preferential old-age pension do not have the right to transition to an old-age pension on general grounds after reaching retirement age.
Case No. 380/7051/24 dated 18/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the payment of a pension to a serviceman, taking into account indexation without limiting the maximum amount to 1500 UAH. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court violated the procedural rights of the plaintiff by adopting a decision before the expiration of the term for submitting an objection to the appellate appeal. The appellate court assigned the plaintiff 5 days to submit an objection, but issued a decision before this term expired, effectively depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to submit their objections. Such actions of the court are a violation of procedural law that made it impossible to establish all the factual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 990/130/24 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and demanding to perform certain actions. Unfortunately, the motivational part of the decision is absent in the provided text, so it is impossible to analyze the arguments that guided the court when making the decision. The document presents only the introductory and operative parts. The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in full.
Case No. 713/2351/22 dated 11/11/2024
The court, when considering the case, took into account that after the commission of the crime, a new law came into force, which decriminalized theft of property worth up to 2 non-taxableHere is the translation:
The threshold was set at 1.5 times the subsistence minimum for citizens (2,481 UAH in 2022). Since the stolen bicycle’s value was less than this amount, the act ceased to be criminally punishable and became an administrative offense. The law that mitigates liability has retroactive effect.
[Case No. 226/165/23 dated 12/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against lower court decisions regarding PERSON_6. The court decided to close the criminal proceedings because the law establishing criminal liability for the committed act had lost its validity. This corresponds to the principle that a law abolishing or mitigating a person’s liability has retroactive effect. The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal but canceled the decisions of previous instances.
As a result of the case review, the Supreme Court canceled the first instance court judgment and the appellate court ruling and closed the criminal proceedings.
[Case No. 600/1113/20-а dated 19/11/2024]
Subject of dispute: an individual entrepreneur challenging tax notifications regarding additional tax assessments due to non-inclusion of the cost of purchasing and maintaining a truck tractor with a semi-trailer in expenses. The Supreme Court indicated that a truck tractor combined with a semi-trailer constitutes a road train and is a vehicle whose sole purpose is cargo transportation, therefore classified as a freight vehicle. According to the Tax Code of Ukraine, expenses for purchasing and maintaining freight vehicles as dual-purpose fixed assets are not included in the entrepreneur’s expenses. First and appellate instance courts incorrectly interpreted legislative norms and did not establish all circumstances significant for correctly resolving the dispute. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the tax authority’s cassation appeal, canceled previous instance court decisions regarding claim satisfaction, and referred the case for new consideration to the first instance court.
[Case No. 420/7184/19 dated 19/11/2024]
Subject of dispute: challenging tax notifications regarding VAT additional assessment, penalty sanctions, and reduction of negative VAT value. The court was guided by the fact that the taxpayer did not provide appropriate primary documents confirming the use of fuel and lubricants, construction materials, and seeds in its own economic activity. Specifically, there were no travel sheets with information about routes and transportation volumes, completed construction work certificates, documents about seed usage on specific land plots. Meanwhile, the court recognized that the company had the right to write off agricultural products as it possessed the necessary storage facilities. The court partially satisfied the tax authority’s cassation appeal and maintained VAT and penalty sanctions assessments, except for the episode regarding agricultural product write-off.
[Case No. 289/2601/21 dated 12/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance and appellate court judgment regarding conviction for intentional murder (Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The cassation instance court recognized the previous courts’ conclusions as correct, since the nature and number of bodily injuries (at least 15 strikes with hands, feet, knife, and pliers to the head and body), their localization in vital organs, change of crime tools, and the convicted person’s subsequent behavior (did not provide assistance, did not call an ambulance, left the victim in the premise)Case No. 152/1123/23 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing a court verdict regarding conviction for theft by breaking into a dental polyclinic premises during martial law.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the investigative experiment was conducted in compliance with all procedural norms, and the defense’s claims about violation of the accused’s rights are unfounded; 2) the accused’s right to defense was not violated, as the previous defense counsel acted within the law and in accordance with the agreed position with the client; 3) evidence of the person’s guilt was properly examined by the court of first instance and therefore did not require re-examination in the appellate instance.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and denied satisfaction of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 200/1009/24 dated 18/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff has the right to mutual offset of work periods under List No. 1 and Resolution No. 202; 2) an additional 18 months are legally credited according to the Explanation of the Ministry of Social Security No. 8 dated 20.01.1992; 3) the plaintiff’s total special work experience, taking into account mutual offset, exceeds the required 25 years.
Case No. 640/9771/20 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the refusal to register a land plot and compelling such registration.
The court drew attention to the fact that previous instances did not properly investigate important case circumstances, specifically: they did not verify the respondent’s arguments regarding differences in area and boundaries of disputed land plots, did not assess the impossibility of bringing land documentation into compliance due to imposed arrest, did not examine land management technical documentation, and did not substantiate the respondent’s authority to provide information through information exchange.
The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive clarification of all case circumstances.
Case No. 400/8007/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) from March to August 2022, the plaintiff was registered as an IDP in another region, therefore claims against the respondent for this period are unfounded; 2) for the period August-December 2022, the plaintiff did not register her minor child as an internally displaced person and did not obtain the corresponding certificate, which is a mandatory condition for receiving assistance; 3) the plaintiff did not timely contact the respondent for clarifications regarding non-assignment of payments.
Case No. 340/8613/23 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Compensation of legal assistance expenses for an attorney in a case about return of a vehicle by customs.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly refused compensation for attorney expenses, as: 1) with a fixed fee, detailed time expenditure is not required; 2) the court cannot intervene
