Case No. 160/6501/24 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation court established that the appellate court improperly refused to open appellate proceedings, as the tax authority acted in good faith – it filed the first appeal complaint in a timely manner, and after its return due to non-payment of court fees, promptly eliminated the deficiencies and filed a repeated complaint. The Supreme Court noted that when assessing the validity of reasons for missing the deadline, all circumstances of the case should be taken into account and excessive formalism should be avoided.
Case No. 405/9034/21 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the verdicts of first and appellate instance courts regarding conviction for theft with premises breaking. The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the imposed punishment corresponds to the severity of the committed crimes and the person of the convicted; 2) previous instance courts correctly took into account all case circumstances, including mitigating circumstances and the health condition of the convicted; 3) due to legislative changes, one episode of theft requires reclassification to a less serious crime. The Supreme Court partially modified previous court decisions – reclassified one episode from Part 3 of Article 185 to Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but left the final punishment as 5 years and 1 month of imprisonment.
Case No. 560/4660/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) delay in executing a decision on reinstatement at work gives the right to receive average earnings; 2) the period of accruing such earnings is limited to July 19, 2022, when the law canceling the preservation of average earnings for employees on military service came into force; 3) the fact of the plaintiff’s military service under contract does not affect the right to receive average earnings for the period until 07/19/2022.
Case No. 320/6326/20 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of court expenses for court fees in a case of challenging tax notifications-decisions. The court considered the individual entrepreneur’s application for adopting an additional decision regarding compensation of court expenses that were not resolved in the main court decision. Since the plaintiff won the main dispute regarding cancellation of tax notifications-decisions, they are entitled to compensation of incurred court expenses at the expense of budgetary allocations of the tax authority. The court satisfied the application and ordered to recover court expenses of 22,700 UAH from the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast in favor of the individual entrepreneur.
Case No. 620/11807/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court established that this architectural monument has been in state ownership of the Ukrainian SSR since 1963 and passed to Ukraine’s ownership. No decisions on transferring the object from state to communal ownership were made. Including the monument in the list of communal property objects by the regional council’s decision does not create legal grounds for registering communal ownership rights, as this requires a decision by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and compliance with the legally established transfer procedure.
Case No. 580/1714/24 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation court focused on a procedural violation – the tax authority was not properly notified about the case consideration and did not receive a copy of the statement of claim, which deprived it of the opportunity to submit a response and provide its arguments.Case No. 127/5836/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to restore the time limit for appealing the investigating judge’s decision. The court established that the appellate court examined the case in the absence of the applicant, with no evidence in the case materials of proper notification of the person about the time and place of the court session. This is a significant violation of criminal procedural law requirements, as the court is obligated to verify the fact of the person receiving notification about the court session. Such violation prevented the adoption of a lawful and substantiated court decision. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and assigned a new case review.
Case No. 755/6856/17 dated 14/11/2024
The appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, recognized as admissible the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, including the protocol of his interrogation as a witness dated January 24, 2014, and testimonies of other witnesses. The court also took into account that the crime was committed during the performance of official duties, which is significant for resolving civil claims of the victims.
Case No. 751/7807/23 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person convicted of violating road traffic safety or transport operation rules (Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since only the operative part of the resolution was provided, the court does not disclose the arguments of its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found no grounds to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions. The Supreme Court left the Chernihiv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 240/32918/23 dated 20/11/2024
The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly refused the tax authority to open appellate proceedings due to missing the appeal time limit. The court noted that the tax authority acted in good faith – timely filing the first appellate appeal, and after its return due to non-payment of court fees, repeatedly attempted to eliminate deficiencies and pay the fee, filing relevant motions. Meanwhile, the time limit missed was insignificant and did not indicate abuse of procedural rights.
Case No. 460/1007/21 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the prescription and warning of the State Labor Service regarding violation of labor legislation in connection with non-registration of labor relations with an employee. The court was guided by the fact that between the individual entrepreneur and the employee, labor relations actually existed because: the employee performed carpenter functions in a window production workshop; civil law contract and other documents were drawn up after the inspection; during the inspection, the employee confirmed working as a carpenter; there was no proof of the employee having own materials and production means for manufacturing plastic windows. Under such circumstances, the individual entrepreneur was obligated to conclude an employment contract and notify tax authorities about hiring the employee. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to refuse satisfaction of the individual entrepreneur’s claim to cancel the State Labor Service’s prescription.Subject of the dispute – challenging by the taxpayer the decisions of the tax authority and tax notifications-decisions. The court left the cassation appeal of the tax authority unsatisfied, as the decisions of the previous instances were legal and well-founded. Unfortunately, from the provided fragment of the decision, it is impossible to establish specific arguments of the court, since only the introductory and operative parts are provided without the motivational part of the decision. The Supreme Court decided to leave unchanged the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, which were in favor of the taxpayer – LLC “Vago-Rev”.
[Case No. 140/35259/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the tax authority acted in good faith and promptly eliminated the shortcomings of the first appellate complaint by filing a repeated complaint in a short time. The court also took into account that the missed deadline was insignificant and would not violate the principle of legal certainty. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that when resolving the issue of valid reasons for missing the deadline, it is necessary to avoid excessive formalism and consider all circumstances of the case.
[Case No. 120/5141/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the certificate of the military unit commander dated 05.08.2022 No. 1245 is sufficient evidence of the serviceman’s participation in combat operations. Additional lists in the form of Appendix 2 to Order No. 164-AG are not the sole basis for paying such compensation. It is important that the right to receive this compensation arises in connection with actual participation in combat operations and does not depend on the serviceman’s desire.
[Case No. 120/5389/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that a certificate from a military unit issued based on a combat order is an appropriate document to confirm the right to additional compensation. The provisions of orders from the State Border Service Administration cannot limit the right of servicemen to receive this compensation. The commander who issued the certificate is responsible for its content.
[Case No. 440/18176/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute concerns challenging the appellate court’s decision to return the appellate complaint due to non-payment of court fees and refusal to defer its payment. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court prematurely returned the complaint without waiting for the end of the established period to eliminate shortcomings. Moreover, the appellate court incorrectly applied the law regarding the possibility of deferring court fee payment by legal entities, ignoring the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which a legal entity has the right to request a deferral of court fee payment, and the court may grant it taking into account the applicant’s property status. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to resolve the issue of deferring court fee payment, taking into account the legal positions of the Grand Chamber.
[Case No. 140/2609/24 dated 20/11/2024]
Subject of the dispute: challenging the tax service’s order to revoke licenses for retail fuel trade at two gas stations. The court was guided by the fact that the mere possibility of economic losses for the company (gas station shutdown, loss of profit, contract violations) is not sufficient grounds for securing the claim by suspending the contested order. The court noted that entrepreneurial activity involves its own risks, and in case of unlawfulBased on the provided text, here is the translation of the legal cases:
Regarding the tax service decision, the company will be able to recover damages through a separate procedure. The court also emphasized that securing a claim in all cases of license revocation solely due to licensees’ economic interests effectively nullifies the licensing authorities’ powers. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower courts and refused to secure the claim by suspending the order on license revocation.
Case No. 380/25523/23 dated 20/11/2024
The appellate court refused to open proceedings because LLC “Pabtrade” missed the appeal deadline and did not submit an application for its renewal, despite being given the opportunity. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, as a copy of the first instance court’s decision was properly delivered to the plaintiff’s electronic cabinet, and the appeal deadline was missed without valid reasons.
Case No. 592/18486/23 dated 20/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for the decision. However, from the text, it is evident that both the first instance and appellate courts found the person guilty, and the defense attorney attempted to challenge these decisions through cassation. The Supreme Court left the defense attorney’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 460/6560/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that according to paragraph 20 of Article 10-1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Family Members,” servicemen serving under conscription during mobilization are entitled only to basic leave and compensation for it. Additional leave as a combatant and compensation for it are not provided by law for this category of servicemen. The court also took into account that during a special period, granting additional leave to servicemen is suspended.
Case No. 120/7941/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court noted that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate: whether the payment was linked to being in a specific territory understood as “possible combat” areas, what tasks the serviceman performed, and whether there were instances of such remuneration being calculated for other servicemen. Previous instance courts did not properly examine all these circumstances.
Case No. 641/1950/22 dated 14/11/2024
The first instance court sentenced the defendant to 4 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 3 years, taking into account the positive characteristics of the accused, absence of previous convictions, volunteer activities, and sincere remorse. The appellate court revoked the probationary period, citing the increased public danger of the crime during martial law. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation complaints, took into account the convict’s personality, positive characteristics, and volunteer activities.
Case No. 320/17067/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) legal assistance expenses are subject to compensation for the party in whose favor the decision is made; 2) the compensation amount must be1) proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided; 2) the court is not obliged to award all claimed expenses if it considers them inflated. The court also rejected the Cabinet of Ministers’ argument about the impossibility of recovering funds due to budget legislation.
Case No. 440/10970/22 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that NKRECP had legal grounds for conducting a planned inspection of the company, as it is a universal services provider with special obligations to ensure public interests. Such inspections are not subject to the Law “On Basic Principles of State Supervision (Control) in Economic Activity”, and the frequency of inspections is established by a special procedure – no more than once a year.
Case No. 990/130/24 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to refuse to recommend a candidate for a local court judge position. The court found that the HQCJ reasonably refused the candidate because doubts were raised about her integrity, namely: inability to explain the sources of funds for real estate purchase, purchasing a car at an undervalued price, having utility service debt, and concealing information about participation as a witness in a criminal case regarding improper benefit. Moreover, the court recognized that conducting an interview with the candidate in accordance with new legislative requirements does not violate the principles of equality and legal certainty. The Supreme Court denied the claim, recognizing the HQCJ decision as legal and justified.
Case No. 463/5151/23 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – a prosecutor challenging the appellate court’s decision to mitigate the sentence of a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment than provided by law). The appellate court did not substantiate how the circumstances of the case significantly reduce the severity of the crime, but simply referred to the same circumstances already considered by the court of first instance. It was also not taken into account that the convicted person committed 4 episodes of criminal actions and had a previous conviction for a similar crime. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review, as the imposed punishment was too mild and did not correspond to the severity of the committed crimes.
Case No. 440/872/24 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 provision, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of retirement age) for appointing a regular old-age pension. Such a pension is appointed and paid according to the procedure and conditions of Law No. 1058-IV, therefore, persons receiving it do not have the right to re-appoint the same type of pension (old-age pension) on general grounds. In this case, the Supreme Court directly departed from its previous position, which allowed such a possibility.
Case No. 120/562/21-а dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a prosecutor has the right to represent the state’s interests in court in case of inaction by a competent body, which consists of not applying to court within a reasonable time after the body became aware of the violation.The court of cassation instance did not properly examine the prosecutor’s evidence regarding the inaction of the State Geocadaster, which for over 11 months did not appeal the first instance court decision due to the lack of funds for court fees.
[Case No. 160/24369/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The cassation instance court established that the previous courts did not properly verify the legality of the inspection order, specifically: whether the order contained mandatory requisites, whether the person planned for inspection corresponded to the person actually inspected, and whether the inspection basis was properly specified in accordance with paragraph 80.2.5 of the Tax Code. The evidence regarding the actual conduct of the control purchase was also not examined.
[Case No. 520/10255/24 dated 20/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that a separate order of the Minister of Defense No. 2683/z dated 01.02.2023 is an internal departmental document of a temporary nature and cannot be a basis for pension recalculation. At the same time, the courts did not investigate the plaintiff’s right to recalculation in connection with the increase of the subsistence minimum in 2023.
[Case No. 640/10541/20 dated 20/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that until September 15, 2015, Switzerland was on the list of low-taxation states, therefore operations with a Swiss company during this period were considered controlled. The court also took into account that the volume of operations exceeded the legally established threshold of 5 million hryvnias, and the oil sales price was lower than the market price. The controlling body correctly applied a combination of transfer pricing methods to determine compliance with the ‘arm’s length’ principle.
[Case No. 640/13251/19 dated 14/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the company was not obliged to discount short-term debt and loans at market interest rates; 2) the controlling body improperly applied international accounting standards instead of national standards when calculating the discount; 3) regarding compensation for other companies’ credit servicing expenses – the case requires additional consideration to clarify all circumstances.
[Case No. 520/16322/23 dated 20/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that National Guard servicemen are entitled to recalculation of monetary provision according to CMU Resolution No. 704, not No. 988. Due to the increase of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons from January 1, 2023, the plaintiff acquired the right to receive an updated reference for pension recalculation. At the same time, the court noted that the norm about the subsistence minimum of 2,102 hryvnias for state agency employees does not apply to military pensioners.
[Case No. 160/5304/19 dated 20/11/2024]
The court recognized the resolutions as unlawful, as the State Labor Service did not comply with the legislation requirements regarding proper notification of the enterprise about the consideration of the case on imposing fines. According to the established practice of the Supreme Court, failure to notify a person about the time and place of case consideration is an independent ground for canceling the decision to impose a fine. The court also noted that when establishing such a procedural violation, there is no need to analyze the essence of the identified violations.
[Case No. 320/3260/23 dated 19/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the respondentThe first excerpt:
He did not have the right to refuse to issue urban planning conditions due to the absence of ‘development intentions’, as such a document is not part of the exhaustive list of necessary documents under the law. Instead, the respondent should have issued urban planning conditions specifying all planning restrictions related to the location of the object in the historical area of the city. The court also noted that the mere issuance of urban planning conditions does not grant the right to conduct construction works, but only determines technical parameters for design.
The second excerpt:
The court was guided by the fact that for pension assignment based on length of service, calendar length of service can be credited on preferential terms in accordance with Procedure No. 393 in the version valid until 19.02.2022. At the same time, authorized structural units are entrusted with functions of preparing and submitting necessary documents to pension-assigning bodies. The court also took into account that the plaintiff has the right to preferential calculation of service periods in ATO/JFO with a ratio of 1 month per 3 months. The Supreme Court satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the first instance court’s decision on partial satisfaction of the claim.
The third excerpt:
The court was guided by the fact that NKRECP violated the legally established procedure for applying sanctions, as it immediately imposed a fine without prior issuance of a prescription to eliminate violations and provide an opportunity to voluntarily correct them. The court also took into account that the regulatory framework allowed gas distribution companies to adjust gas consumption volumes to standard conditions, and the costs for this were not included in the tariff.
The fourth excerpt:
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court’s verdict and appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for theft, intentional serious bodily harm, and hooliganism. The court was guided by the fact that the law establishing criminal liability for theft (Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) had lost its force, therefore the criminal proceedings in this part are subject to closure. At the same time, the court decided that the charge of intentional serious bodily harm (Part 1 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code) is justified, and the punishment of 6 years of imprisonment corresponds to the severity of the crime committed. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal – canceled the verdict in the part of theft but upheld the conviction for intentional serious bodily harm with the assignment of 6 years of imprisonment.
The fifth excerpt:
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of crimes related to illicit drug trafficking. The court does not provide detailed reasoning as this is only the operative part of the resolution. However, from the decision, it is evident that the court found grounds to cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new trial. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to apply a preventive measure in the form of detention to the accused, taking into account the severity of the imputed crimes and the person’s previous conviction. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the challenged ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review, choosing the accused.Preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 320/319/23 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging tax notifications-decisions on imposing fines on a sugar factory for violations of legislation on alcohol production and circulation. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the tax authority had legal grounds for conducting an actual inspection of the enterprise, since the performance of functions in the sphere of alcohol production is an independent sufficient basis for such inspection and does not require prior information about violations. The court also established that the procedure for appointing and conducting the inspection was observed, and the inspection order contained all necessary details, including the inspection period by reference to the relevant article of the Tax Code.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to refuse satisfaction of the taxpayer’s claim and recognized the imposition of penalties as lawful.
Case No. 820/2713/18 dated 19/11/2024
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the mere fact of convictions for fictitious entrepreneurship of contractors does not prove the unreality of specific transactions with the taxpayer; 2) the tax authority did not prove the taxpayer’s awareness of possible violations by contractors; 3) the taxpayer provided appropriate primary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions and the use of goods in its own economic activity.
Case No. 990/107/24 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and demanding to perform certain actions. Since the provided text lacks the reasoning part of the decision, it is impossible to determine the arguments used by the court when rendering the decision. A complete text of the court decision with the reasoning part is necessary for a full analysis of the court’s legal positions.
Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court fully denied the claim.
Case No. 202/2174/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court found the defense’s arguments about the impropriety of entering information into the Unified State Register of Pre-trial Investigations and violation of the convict’s constitutional rights to be unfounded. The person’s guilt was proven by a set of evidence, including their own admission of guilt, witness testimony, protocols of phone examination and investigative experiment. The court also rejected arguments about improper assessment of a military-related voice message.
Case No. 460/14394/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that for obtaining such a pension increase, the determining factors are only the person’s place of residence in the radioactive contamination territory and the status of a non-working pensioner. The presence of a certificate of status as a victim of the Chornobyl disaster is not a mandatory condition. The amount of surcharge should be calculated based on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, not the minimum wage.
Case No. 160/2124/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the Dnipro City Council Executive Committee regarding the determination of a responsible municipal enterprise in the sphere of dismantling and storing advertising means. The court established that the challenged decision is a regulatory act, as it: affects an indefinite circle of persons in the field of outdoor advertising placement; establishes new norms regardingRegarding the dismantling of advertising structures and the conditions for their return; regulates financial matters and appoints a responsible authority. However, the decision was made in violation of the procedure – without conducting a regulatory impact analysis and without publishing the draft for public discussion, as required by law. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the first instance court’s decision declaring the executive committee’s decision unlawful and invalid.
Case No. 380/9434/24 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court violated procedural norms by returning the respondent’s appeal before the expiration of the established five-day period for rectifying deficiencies. The court noted that the appellate instance had no right to return the complaint on the last day of the period, without waiting for its completion, as this violates the complainant’s rights to rectify deficiencies within the full provided time.
Case No. 201/9027/23 dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the crime is negligent, it belongs to the category of serious offenses. Specific traffic rule violations (speeding, failure to give way to a pedestrian) that led to a person’s death were taken into account. The court also considered the convicted person’s positive characteristics but concluded that a suspended sentence would not achieve the goal of preventing new crimes.
Case No. 160/373/24 dated 20/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices amounting to 431,831.99 UAH. The cassation instance court found that the previous instance courts did not properly examine evidence for each tax invoice and did not take into account the circumstances of the taxpayer’s inability to fulfill their obligations during martial law. In particular, the fact of the plaintiff’s submission of an application about the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations was not investigated, and no assessment was given to the tax authority’s decision regarding the possibility of fulfilling such obligations, which is being challenged in another case. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court for a complete and comprehensive clarification of all case circumstances.
Case No. 420/2512/21 dated 20/11/2024
The appellate instance court, which was supported by the Supreme Court, recognized such a decision as unlawful, since the disputed land plot belongs to the lands of the nature reserve fund of the Tuzlovski Lymany National Nature Park. According to the law, any activities that may negatively affect natural complexes are prohibited on such lands. Moreover, the purposes of using nature reserve fund territories do not provide for the placement of engineering and transport infrastructure.
Case No. 560/4660/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the decision to reinstate the plaintiff in the position was not executed by the respondent, which gives the right to receive average earnings for the delay period; 2) the period of average earnings payment is limited to July 19, 2022, when the law canceling the preservation of average earnings for employees on military service came into effect; 3) the plaintiff’s conclusion of a military service contract does not affect the right to receive average earnings for the period of non-execution of the reinstatement decision.Case No. 240/7001/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the Pension Fund’s refusal to accrue a pension increase for a minor living in a radioactively contaminated area as a result of the Chornobyl disaster. 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. Therefore, they are entitled to a pension increase of two subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons if they live in a radioactively contaminated area. The court also noted that for calculating the supplement, the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons should be applied, not the minimum wage. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal and obliged the Pension Fund to accrue and pay the pension increase to the child as a non-working pensioner.
Case No. 160/3407/24 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the tax service missed the 30-day term for appealing the first instance court decision (filed a complaint on May 24 instead of the deadline of May 16). In this case, the tax service did not provide an application to restore the missed term or evidence of valid reasons for missing it, although the court provided an opportunity to do so. The court also rejected the tax service’s argument that the term should be calculated from the moment of receiving the decision, since according to the law, when considering a case in written proceedings, the term is calculated from the day of drafting the full court decision.
Case No. 755/6856/17 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of torture motivated by racial, national, or religious intolerance. When making the decision, the court was guided by the need to recover procedural expenses for expert examinations from the convicted person. The court also deemed it necessary to cancel the decision regarding civil claims of the victims and transfer them for consideration to the first instance court in civil proceedings order. In other parts, the court agreed with the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, modifying the appellate court’s verdict regarding procedural expenses and canceling it in the part of civil claims.
Case No. 320/4795/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: appealing the refusal of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine to issue a conclusion regarding extension of settlement deadlines for electric motor import operations. The cassation instance court noted that the previous instance courts did not establish all important case circumstances, in particular: whether the plaintiff submitted a Ukrainian translation of the contract along with the application, which is a mandatory legislative requirement. The court also indicated that previous positive decisions by the Ministry of Economy for the same contract do not create an obligation to issue new conclusions, as each application is considered a separate administrative procedure. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and referred the case for a new review to the first instance court for a complete and comprehensive clarification of all case circumstances.
Case No. 120/7497/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a military unit certificate issued based on a combat order is a proper evidence of a serviceman’s participation in combat actions. Violations of document transfer procedures between military units cannot be grounds
