Case No. 753/19724/15-k dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal in a case of an individual accused of illegal sale of psychotropic substances. The court was guided by the fact that the prosecution’s evidence was deemed inadmissible due to violations during covert investigative actions, particularly the lack of confirmation of circumstances from the undercover buyer and the impossibility of their testimony in court. The court also took into account that the witnesses did not directly see the drug sale, but only the procedure of examining the buyer before and after the purchase. Although some conclusions of lower courts contradicted the Supreme Court’s practice, these contradictions did not significantly affect the correctness of the decision. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 401/2687/22 dated 14/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) knife strikes were chaotic and applied to different body parts, with most not causing serious injuries; 2) the accused had the opportunity to complete her intent but voluntarily stopped her actions; 3) the accused’s behavior did not indicate direct intent to murder. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments about necessary defense, as the conflict occurred in the victim’s home, where the accused could have freely left.
Case No. 466/7493/23 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: a prosecutor’s appeal against a court verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking due to an excessively lenient sentence. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the convicted person is being prosecuted for the first time, sincerely repented, and actively assisted the investigation; 2) mitigating circumstances are present – surrender with confession and committing the crime due to difficult life circumstances; 3) the person has strong social ties and transferred part of the bail to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Supreme Court left the previous instances’ decision unchanged, sentencing to 5 years of imprisonment with a probation period of 3 years, only removing the reference to cannabis as an especially dangerous narcotic substance.
Case No. 911/1972/22 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a necessary condition for concluding a purchase and sale agreement for a municipal land plot is the presence of a decision by the relevant authority to sell the plot. The court cannot substitute the local self-government body and assume powers related to issues legally within the competence of that body. It was also taken into account that the city council did not comply with the previous court decision to be obligated to make a decision regarding the sale of this plot.
Case No. 910/14863/22 dated 12/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the presence of a common element “Natura” creates only a partial and weak similarity, insufficient to confirm the likelihood of consumer confusion; 2) it is methodologically incorrect to break down a trademark into parts and determine similarity based on only one part; 3) by the combined effect of sound, graphic, and semantic features, the compared marks create different overall visual impressions and are not associated with each other.
Case No. 924/702/23 dated 21/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the previous courts did not fulfill the Supreme Court’s instructions regarding proper assessment of all evidence in their totality and interconnection. In particular, the facts of using the same IP address by participants were not properly investigated.Trades, the presence of telephone conversations between them, and other circumstances that could indicate coordinated actions.
Case No. 911/3292/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court denied the claim because the plaintiff’s chosen method of protection is ineffective. In particular, the requirement to declare the absence of own rights and obligations is beyond the competence of the commercial court, and the appropriate method of protection in such legal relations is a claim to declare the absence of the lease right for the defendant (LLC “SUAL”). Moreover, canceling the decisions of the state registrar will not restore the plaintiff’s violated rights.
Case No. 592/2816/22 dated 14/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person committed a serious crime with multiple episodes of psychotropic substance distribution in significant volumes, which created a threat to the health of an indefinite circle of persons. Although the accused is positively characterized, has mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, assistance to the investigation) and no aggravating circumstances, the court believes that a positive characteristic alone cannot counterbalance the public danger of the committed crime. The appellate court correctly determined that the correction of the convicted person is impossible without actual serving of the sentence.
Case No. 624/429/22 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – defense counsel’s appeal of the verdict against PERSON_7, convicted under Article 128 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (negligent serious or moderate bodily injury). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for the adopted decision but notes that the full text of the resolution will be announced later due to the need for significant time to compile it. The court acted in accordance with the procedural norms provided by Articles 376 and 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court dated February 14, 2024, and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 276/831/20 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against the convicted person for theft and theft of military property.
Main arguments of the court: Having considered the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, the court found grounds for changing the appellate court’s verdict regarding sentencing. The panel of judges concluded that it is possible to correct the convicted person without actual serving of the sentence by applying release from serving the sentence with probation.
Court decision: The defense counsel’s cassation complaint was satisfied, the appellate court’s verdict was changed by releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation for 1 year 6 months with the imposition of certain obligations.
Case No. 628/468/17 dated 12/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not properly verify all defense arguments, did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the case circumstances, and did not evaluate the evidence in accordance with the law requirements. The court also did not respond to the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of recognizing the accused as guilty and the lack of sufficient evidence of her guilt.
Case No. 127/1912/23 dated 14/11/2024
The court recognized that the deputy, voting for the recognition of the so-called DPR/LPR and ratification of agreements with them, acted intentionally as part of a group of persons with the aim of changing Ukraine’s borders, which led to the death of people and other serious consequences. The trial was conducted under a special procedure (in absentia) while observing all procedural guarantees. Evidence of guilt was properly verified and evaluated by the courts.Case No. 911/1528/15 (911/1929/23) dated 05/11/2024
The court established that the disputed property was removed from the owner’s possession (LLC ‘Priority Ukraine’) against its will through an invalidated purchase and sale agreement. LLC ‘Ridley’ acquired the property at electronic auction from PE ‘Prombudservice 2005’ after the initial contract was declared invalid. The court recognized LLC ‘Ridley’ as a bad faith acquirer, since the companies have the same founders and managers, are located at the same address, which indicates coordinated actions to complicate the return of property to the legitimate owner.
Case No. 904/3170/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court rejected the cassation appeal because the circumstances cited by the appellant (lack of authority of the city council representative to sign the claim) were already known during the substantive consideration of the case and had already been examined by the courts. Moreover, the case materials confirmed the presence of proper authority of the city council representative.
Case No. 991/11063/24 dated 07/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is an application for interim measures to prohibit ARMA from transferring shares of two enterprises (PJSC ‘Morshyn Mineral Water Plant ‘Oscar’ and PJSC ‘Industrial and Distribution Systems’) to LLC ‘Carpathian Mineral Waters’ for management. The court rejected the interim measures, guided by the fact that the applicant did not prove the grounds for interim measures – did not substantiate that the failure to take such measures could complicate the execution of the court decision or protect the plaintiff’s rights. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant is essentially trying to suspend the execution of Shevchenkivskyi District Court decisions on transferring corporate rights to ARMA through interim measures. The appellate court upheld the first instance court’s ruling on refusal of interim measures.
Case No. 400/1695/22 dated 21/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging tax notifications-decisions adopted based on a documentary scheduled inspection conducted during the moratorium on inspections due to COVID-19. The court was guided by the fact that the moratorium on tax inspections was directly enshrined in the Tax Code of Ukraine and could only be changed by law, not by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 89. Therefore, conducting an inspection during the moratorium period was illegal, which is an independent basis for canceling the tax notifications-decisions adopted based on its results. The court referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court on this issue. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances on satisfying the claim and canceling tax notifications-decisions.
Case No. 520/24514/21 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging tax notifications-decisions by which additional VAT was charged and negative VAT value was reduced due to the inability to confirm the presence of inventory during inventory. The court’s main arguments: 1) Previous instance courts did not properly verify the taxpayer’s good faith actions and economic feasibility of operations; 2) The inventory description was not examined, which only stated the general name ‘construction materials’ without detailing the nomenclature; 3) No assessment was made of the possibility of identifying inventory during the inventory. Court decision: The case was sent for a new review to the first instance court for a complete and comprehensive clarification of all case circumstances.
Case No. 640/9688/22 dated 21/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that…Police Officer’s Obligation and Court Decisions
1. Case No. 320/8092/23 dated 21/11/2024:
A police officer who has taken the oath is obligated to follow leadership orders and continue service even under martial law conditions. The court considered that other employees were able to evacuate from the occupied territory, while the plaintiff did not take sufficient measures to comply with the order to arrive at the new unit location in Mykolaiv and did not inform leadership about objective obstacles. The court also noted that risk to life cannot be a justification for a police officer’s failure to perform official duties.
2. Case No. 14/86/2012/5003 dated 22/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that in disputes about recovering average earnings for non-compliance with reinstatement decisions, the timeframes for court appeals are determined by the Labor Code of Ukraine (3 months), not the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine (1 month). The court also considered that during the COVID-19 quarantine, court appeal timeframes were extended for the entire quarantine period.
3. Case No. 922/1589/22 dated 13/11/2024:
The court ruled that the goods were properly delivered and accepted by the buyer; sanctions imposed on the plaintiff’s ultimate beneficial owner cannot automatically extend to the enterprise according to the law on joint-stock companies; the plaintiff does not fall under the moratorium on obligation fulfillment established by CMU Resolution No. 187.
4. Case No. 917/1597/19 dated 13/11/2024:
Subject of dispute: bankruptcy proceedings for the municipal enterprise ‘Poltava City Road Maintenance Division’. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) Inventory and financial analysis revealed liabilities (15.5 million UAH) significantly exceed assets (6.1 million UAH); 2) Enterprise property is in unsatisfactory condition and can only be sold as scrap metal; 3) No applications from persons willing to participate in debtor rehabilitation; 4) Creditors’ meeting decided to transition to liquidation procedure. The court decided to recognize the debtor as bankrupt and open liquidation proceedings.
5. Case No. 904/4841/22 dated 11/11/2024:
The court denied case closure because the debtor conducted inventory with gross legislative violations (without property manager participation), did not consider 15 court decisions invalidating contracts totaling over 22 million UAH, and did not provide evidence of creditor claim satisfaction. Creditors’ meeting decided to recognize the debtor as bankrupt and open liquidation procedure.
6. Case No. 916/4980/23 dated 21/11/2024:
The court refused to open appellate proceedings as the appeal was filed after the deadline, and the reasons for missing the deadline were deemed invalid. The court established that the defendant’s lawyer received the first instance court decision in the electronic cabinet on 14.06.2024 but filed the appeal only on 20.08.2024, without providing sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline.Battles with electricity and internet were not recognized by the court as sufficiently significant reasons for such a prolonged missed deadline.
Case No. 990/228/23 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy (specific content of the decree is not disclosed in the decision text). Unfortunately, from the provided decision text, it is impossible to determine the court’s arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided without the reasoning part, where the court’s legal positions and reasoning are usually presented. The Supreme Court rejected the claim of PERSON_1 against the President of Ukraine to declare the Decree unlawful and cancel it in part.
Case No. 953/8874/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by the victim of the first and appellate instance court rulings. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for the decision made. The full text of the ruling with the reasoning part will be announced later. It should be noted that according to procedural legislation, the court has the right to first announce the operative part if preparing the full text requires significant time. The Supreme Court rejected the victim’s cassation appeal and left the lower instance court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 369/12025/15-к dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by the prosecutor of the appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional serious bodily injury that caused the victim’s death). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that the Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal on the Kyiv Appellate Court ruling in full composition of a three-judge panel, with the participation of all necessary process participants, including the defendant’s defender. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 918/721/23 dated 21/11/2024
When resolving the issue of legal assistance costs distribution, the court was guided by the following main arguments: 1) costs must be real, confirmed by proper evidence and necessary in the case; 2) their amount must be proportionate to the case complexity and volume of services provided; 3) the party must follow the procedure of declaring such costs before the end of judicial debates and provide evidence of their incurrence within the established timeframe.
Case No. 8/468-08 dated 12/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court incorrectly applied procedural law norms by reinstating the prosecutor’s deadline for appealing the first instance court decision after 14 years without proper justification of the valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court did not verify when exactly the city council and the prosecutor became aware of the contested decision and whether the grounds for reinstating the deadline justify interference with the principle of legal certainty.
Case No. 380/3081/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the inspector violated the customs clearance procedure by processing customs declarations for vehicles on June 30, 2022, with the application of benefits, although the vehicles actually arrived at the customs authority only on July 1, 2022, when the benefits were no longer valid. According to the law, a customs declaration can only be submitted after the actual arrival of goods at the customs authority. The inspector also did not establish and record the actual date of vehicle arrival, thereby violating customs formalities.Case No. 473/1031/16-k dated 14/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that according to expert conclusions, the collision occurred on the traffic lane of the truck, where the VAZ car drove. Experts established that the truck driver did not have a technical possibility to avoid the collision, while the VAZ driver could have prevented the accident by following traffic rules. A slight excess of speed by the truck did not have a causal connection with the accident.
Case No. 908/1717/22 dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the enterprise documentarily confirmed the reality of carrying out economic operations for the purchase and processing of used clothing, footwear, and textile products. The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence of the fictitious nature of the operations or the bad faith of the taxpayer. At the same time, tax discipline violations by contractors cannot be grounds for refusing a tax credit to a bona fide taxpayer.
Case No. 640/26354/21 dated 21/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the creation of a construction object is a lengthy process that includes not only construction work but also obtaining permit documentation; 2) since 2014, the plaintiff has been performing necessary preparatory stages – obtaining technical conditions, conducting archaeological research, developing project documentation; 3) delays in construction were caused by objective factors – the need to coordinate historical and urban planning justification, court disputes, and actions of public activists.
Case No. 120/5769/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court’s main arguments: 1) Raw material losses in sunflower processing are an integral part of the oil production technological process and do not require VAT tax liability calculation. 2) The reality of economic operations with the supplier is confirmed by primary documents, and the tax authority did not prove the taxpayer’s awareness of possible violations by the contractor. 3) The supplier’s possession of sufficient land plots for growing the sold volume of sunflower is documentarily confirmed.
Case No. 473/1087/18 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case regarding the accusation of two persons for robbery and illegal drug trafficking. 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 operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s complaint and decided that the case requires a new review in the appellate instance. Following the review of the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court revoked the resolution of the Mykolaiv Appellate Court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 203/3958/22 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the court’s closure of criminal proceedings due to the alleged expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the fact that, according to the Supreme Court’s legal position, provisions on closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms are applied only to proceedings initiated after March 16, 2018. In this case, the proceedings were initiated in 2016, therefore, the extension of pre-trial investigation terms by a prosecutor of the appropriate level was legal, and there were no grounds for closing the proceedings. The Supreme Court revoked the decisions of lower instance courts on closing the criminal proceedings and sent the case for a new review.and review by the first instance court.
Case No. 607/18731/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against an overly lenient punishment for a person who facilitated illegal border crossing by a military serviceman and received an unlawful benefit for this.
The cassation court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the first and appellate instance courts made mistakes: imposed a fine smaller than the unlawful benefit received (UAH 51,000 instead of UAH 182,850); unjustifiably applied conditional release from punishment; did not take into account that the crime is corruption-related and has increased public danger during martial law.
The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review, indicating that applying conditional release from punishment to the accused is unjustified.
Case No. 640/758/19 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict and ruling of lower instance courts in criminal proceedings against a person charged under Part 3 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal transportation of persons across the state border of Ukraine).
The court does not provide detailed arguments in the operative part but decided to partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and cancel the appellate court’s ruling, scheduling a new case review. The defense counsel’s cassation appeal was left unsatisfied. Importantly, the court also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/15990/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute: declaring electricity acceptance-transfer acts and adjustment acts as unlawful and cancelling them, as well as obliging to recalculate debt under the electricity purchase and sale agreement.
Main court arguments: 1) Provisions of regulatory acts that do not comply with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine should not be applied by courts, regardless of whether such acts were challenged in court; 2) The requirement to provide new acts is not an effective method of protection, as acts only confirm facts and cannot be the subject of a lawsuit; 3) The requirement to recalculate debt is an effective method of protection as it can restore the plaintiff’s violated rights.
Court decision: Partially satisfied the cassation appeal – cancelled previous instances’ decisions regarding the refusal to satisfy the debt recalculation requirement and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 904/5286/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of penalty sanctions for violation of delivery terms under a procurement contract.
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant indeed violated delivery terms but acted in good faith and informed the plaintiff about delivery problems; 2) the plaintiff did not prove the existence of damages from the delay; 3) considering the economic situation in the country during martial law, the court has the right to reduce penalty sanctions to ensure a balance of parties’ interests.
The court partially satisfied the claim, reducing penalty sanctions by 70% – to UAH 907,159.78 (UAH 592,185.11 in penalties and UAH 314,974.67 in fines).
Case No. 916/3345/21(916/4077/23) dated 14/11/2024
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protecting their rights – they requested to declare already executed purchase and sale contracts invalid and cancel the notary’s decision but did not file a claim for property return. The court noted that for effective protectionIn this case, the plaintiff would have to file a claim for applying the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction and returning the property, since the mere recognition of the contract as invalid will not lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights to the property.
Case No. 916/4088/23 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: declaring the inaction of the Odesa City Council illegal regarding the non-consideration of LLC “NEUTPROM’s” petitions for land plot division and granting permission to develop land management documentation. The court was guided by the fact that the Odesa City Council violated the requirements of land legislation by not substantively considering the plaintiff’s numerous petitions regarding the registration of rights to a land plot under the real estate it had acquired. The court noted that the council was obligated to bring the petition to the session for consideration and make an appropriate decision (to grant consent or refuse). The council’s inaction violates the property owner’s rights to register rights to the land plot under this real estate. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which obligated the Odesa City Council to consider LLC “NEUTPROM’s” petition at the next session.
Case No. 904/688/19 dated 14/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the tax authority has no right to collect rent, as it is not a party to the land lease agreement – such powers belong only to the lessor (city council). The court also indicated that the penalty sanctions of 114,000 were recognized as lawful, as they were confirmed by a court decision. Regarding the penalty, the court sent the case for a new review, as the moment of the right to accrue it was not properly investigated.
Case No. 240/28165/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court noted that additional remuneration is not taken into account when calculating monetary assistance for health improvement and upon dismissal, as this is directly provided for in Procedure No. 260. At the same time, when calculating compensation for unused leave, such remuneration should be taken into account, as the relevant section of Procedure No. 260 does not contain a prohibition on its consideration.
Case No. 340/2251/24 dated 21/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly refused to open appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff first filed an appellate complaint in a timely manner, and after its return due to lack of proper representation, immediately the next day filed a repeated complaint with eliminated deficiencies. Such procedural behavior indicates the plaintiff’s good faith and absence of abuse. Moreover, limiting the right to appellate review violates the principle of a fair trial.
Case No. 380/8102/24 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the actions of a police officer regarding the use of special means (handcuffs and tear gas) during the administrative detention of a citizen. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to open proceedings, believing that such actions of the police officer should be verified within the framework of an administrative offense case. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that disputes about recognizing police actions regarding the use of special means of influence outside criminal proceedings are public law in nature and should be considered in administrative court proceedings. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 641/1950/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict of the Kharkiv Appellate Court regarding…Conviction of a person for illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court took into account the circumstances of the case and concluded that it was possible to correct the convicted person without actual serving of the sentence. The Supreme Court agreed with the punishment of 4 years of imprisonment but decided to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and release the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation. In this case, the court established a 3-year probation period and imposed on the convicted person the obligations to periodically appear for registration and report changes in place of residence.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, modifying the appellate court’s verdict in terms of releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation.
