Case No. 908/3077/21(908/939/23) dated 05/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the circumstances regarding the legality of notarial actions performed by a private notary outside of their office, did not assess the existence of criminal proceedings against the notary for fraud-related articles, and did not take into account the entire set of evidence when evaluating the property owner’s will. The courts also did not properly apply the standard of proof ‘probability of evidence’ and did not investigate the circumstances of the plaintiff acquiring the status of a company participant.
Case No. 916/4989/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of an assignment of rights agreement under a mortgage contract and a transfer acceptance act between a bank and a financial company regarding real estate. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff acquired ownership of the disputed property as an individual upon leaving the LLC, not as an entrepreneur; 2) the dispute arose from legal relations that are not commercial, as the plaintiff does not act as a business entity; 3) the purpose of the claim is to protect the individual’s property rights. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings, as the dispute is subject to consideration under civil, not commercial proceedings.
Case No. 758/1436/21 dated 19/11/2024
The appellate instance court refused to open appellate proceedings because the appellant did not eliminate the deficiencies in the appeal within the established timeframe – did not provide a statement about renewing the missed appeal deadline with valid reasons. The court established that copies of court decisions were properly sent to the appellant’s addresses but returned with a mark about the storage period expiration, which according to the law is considered proper notification.
Case No. 201/3647/22 dated 20/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the child was moved to Ukraine with the father’s consent and in his accompaniment; 2) there was an agreement between the parents about the child’s permanent residence in Ukraine, confirmed by the number and nature of brought belongings; 3) the child has adapted to Ukraine – has Ukrainian citizenship, attends developmental clubs, has friends, speaks Ukrainian, receives medical care. Forced return of the child to France would create a serious risk of psychological trauma.
Case No. 924/1174/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of the general meeting decisions of the Housing Construction Cooperative “Podilskyi Krai” dated 05.10.2023 and 09.11.2023 regarding the change of cooperative management. The court was guided by the fact that at the time of adopting the challenged decisions, the plaintiff was not a member of the cooperative, as they were excluded by the general meeting decision dated 24.08.2023, which was valid and not canceled at that time. The court noted that the lack of cooperative membership means the absence of corporate rights, and therefore – the absence of the right to challenge general meeting decisions. The fact that the decision on the plaintiff’s exclusion was later declared invalid is irrelevant to this case, as the assessment of the decisions’ legality must occur at the time of their adoption. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Intermediate Instances’ Refusal to Satisfy the Claim
Case No. 175/4023/21 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Compensation for Material and Moral Damage Caused by a Road Traffic Accident Involving Cargo Vehicles. The Court Established that the Local Court Erroneously Considered the Expert Conclusion Regarding the Assessment of the Damaged Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Inadmissible, Incorrectly Indicating that It Was Made on the Order of Another Person. The Appellate Court Did Not Pay Proper Attention to This Violation. At the Same Time, the Court Recognized the Refusal to Recover Lost Profits as Justified, Since the Rental Agreement for the Damaged Vehicle Was Void Due to the Lack of Notarial Certification, and the Calculation of Possible Profit Was Based Only on Theoretical Assumptions. The Supreme Court Partially Satisfied the Cassation Complaint – Canceled the Decisions of Previous Instances Regarding Compensation for Property Damage for the Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Damage and Ordered a New Consideration of This Issue in Civil Proceedings.
Case No. 727/5047/23 dated 18/11/2024
The Court Was Guided by the Fact that the House Had Already Been Written Off the City Council’s Balance and Transferred to the Ownership of Co-Owners According to the Act Dated July 15, 2019. The Court Also Established that the Plaintiff Did Not Have the Authority to Represent the Interests of All Co-Owners of the House in Court. By Law, Decisions Regarding the Repair of Common Property Must Be Made by the Co-Owners’ Meeting, Not by an Individual Property Owner.
Case No. 740/5283/20 dated 18/11/2024
The Court Was Guided by the Fact that the Plaintiff Did Not Provide Proper and Admissible Evidence Confirming the Fact of Obstruction of Access to the Boiler Room by the Defendants. On the Contrary, the Case Materials Contain Evidence that the Plaintiff’s Representative Received Keys to the Boiler Room, Confirmed by His Signature in the Access Log. The Court Also Took into Account that the Visual Inspection Act and Video Recording Do Not Prove the Fact of Lack of Access to the Boiler Room.
Case No. 337/42/23 dated 20/11/2024
The Court Proceeded from the Fact that the Land Plots Are Located within the Boundaries of the Local Botanical Reserve “Soloveyi Hai”, Are within the City of Zaporizhzhia, and Cannot Be Objects of Private Ownership. However, the Prosecutor Chose an Ineffective Method of Protection – Demanding the Cancellation of State Registration of Ownership and Registration of Land Plots, but Did Not Claim Their Return to the Last Acquirer. Such a Method of Protection Will Not Lead to the Actual Restoration of the Territorial Community’s Rights.
Case No. 646/2229/21 dated 20/11/2024
The Appellate Court Considered the Case in the Absence of the Plaintiff’s Representative, as He Was Properly Notified of the Court Session through the ‘Electronic Court’ Subsystem and Email. The Court Established that the Lawyer Had a Registered Electronic Cabinet, Repeatedly Filed Motions through This System, and Was Aware of the Case Hearing Dates. Notifications about Court Sessions Were Properly Delivered to the Lawyer’s Electronic Addresses.
Case No. 742/1974/23 dated 18/11/2024
The Court Established that the Gas Company Lawfully…Recorded the fact of unauthorized interference with the gas meter operation, which is confirmed by a violation report and an expert examination that revealed mechanical damage to seals and the meter mechanism glass. The consumer did not provide evidence of the illegality of the gas company employees’ actions during the meter inspection and examination, or during the calculation of unaccounted gas costs. The court also took into account that the additional charge calculation was made in accordance with the established procedure for 6 months prior to the violation detection.
Case No. 686/28882/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court established that the execution of the disputed contracts was justified, as PERSON_2 needed funds for cancer treatment. Moreover, the land plots that were the subject of the disputed mortgage contract were not the subject of securing previous debt obligations to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not prove that the execution of these contracts led to a deterioration of the debtor’s property status or made the performance of previous obligations impossible.
Case No. 991/4264/24 dated 22/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – application of sanctions in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine against three defendants. The court of first instance (High Anti-Corruption Court) made a decision in favor of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, having considered numerous appeals from defendants and third parties, found no grounds for canceling the first instance court decision. Unfortunately, since only the introductory and operative parts of the document are presented, the specific arguments of the court are not disclosed. The appellate court left the first instance court decision unchanged and the appeals unmet.
Case No. 753/10348/23 dated 18/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff filed a claim within the statute of limitations, as this period was extended for the duration of the COVID-19 quarantine according to paragraph 12 of the Final Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the defendants improperly performed their obligations under the credit agreement, resulting in debt. At the same time, the court refused to recover inflation losses, as the exchange rate difference already compensates for the depreciation of the national currency.
Case No. 140/16247/20 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: recalculation of monthly lifelong monetary maintenance for a retired judge, taking into account changes in length of service and additional payment for years of service.
Main arguments of the court:
1) Half of the study period at a law school should be included in the judge’s length of service that gives the right to retirement, as this was provided by law at the time of the judge’s appointment.
2) Changing the additional payment for years of service from 50% to 60% is a basis for recalculating lifelong maintenance, as this is a change in the component of judicial remuneration.
3) Recalculation should be made from 17.03.2020 – the date of entry into force of the order establishing the new additional payment for years of service.
Court decision: Canceled the appellate court resolution and upheld the first instance court decision, which partially satisfied the retired judge’s claim and obliged the pension authority to recalculate lifelong monetary maintenance.Case No. 759/9508/16-ц dated 21/11/2024
The court of cassation instance established that the case was considered by the court of first instance without proper notification of the debtor about the time and place of the court hearing, which is a violation of his procedural rights and fundamental principles of judicial proceedings. The appellate court, leaving the first instance decision unchanged, did not take into account this violation, although it is a mandatory ground for canceling the court decision.
Case No. 380/9113/23 dated 22/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate a military pension based on a certificate of monetary support issued by the military prosecutor’s office.
Main arguments of the court: 1) The Pension Fund’s refusal was unjustified, as it did not contain a comprehensive analysis of all case circumstances and proper motivation. 2) The courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly obliged the PFU to recalculate the pension without verifying the presence of all legally prescribed grounds. 3) The appropriate method of protecting the plaintiff’s rights is to oblige the Pension Fund to re-examine the application and make a motivated decision taking into account all circumstances.
Court decision: The PFU’s cassation complaint was partially satisfied – the decisions of previous instances were canceled in terms of obliging to recalculate the pension, and the PFU was obliged to re-examine the plaintiff’s application and make a motivated decision.
Case No. 916/1950/16(916/4694/15) dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery from the guarantor (LLC “Ukrbudspetsteсh”) in favor of the bank of debt under the loan agreement for interest and penalty.
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) There is an effective court decision on recovering from the main debtor (FC “Chornomorets”) debt on interest in the amount of 11.8 million US dollars; 2) The guarantor is jointly liable with the main debtor to the same extent; 3) Part of the interest debt was repaid through the sale of the mortgage subject. At the same time, the court did not take into account which claims arose after the bankruptcy proceedings were opened against the guarantor and have the status of current claims.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to clarify which part of the debt has the nature of current claims and can be recovered in the lawsuit proceedings, and which are bankruptcy claims to be satisfied within the bankruptcy case.
Case No. 755/5415/24 dated 25/11/2024
The courts of first and appellate instances satisfied the migration service’s claim, believing that there is a risk of the person evading the deportation decision due to the lack of documents. However, the courts did not investigate key circumstances: whether the person was properly notified about the deprivation of citizenship, whether measures were taken to withdraw the Ukrainian citizen’s passport, and did not assess the law enforcement agencies’ information about the person as a subject of increased criminal influence.
Case No. 140/1438/24 dated 25/11/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the presence of an extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities is sufficient evidence of the representative’s authority to sign an appellate complaint. The court also noted that returning complaints when there is an opportunity to verify the person’s powers jeopardizes compliance with the tasks of administrativeJudicial Proceedings. Moreover, the court indicated that excessive formalism regarding representative document requirements may improperly restrict the right of access to justice.
Case No. 990/107/24 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding refusal to admit to the competition for the position of appellate court judge.
Main Court Arguments: 1) The law requires a candidate for an appellate court judge position to have not just a certificate of advocacy rights for 7 years, but specifically confirmed practical experience as an advocate representing in courts; 2) The plaintiff could documentarily confirm such experience for only 6 years through provided court decisions; 3) Possession of an advocate’s certificate, extract from the advocate register, and tax documents is not sufficient proof of actual advocacy activity.
Court Decision: Reject the claim, as the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine lawfully established the plaintiff’s lack of necessary 7-year practical advocacy experience.
Case No. 472/320/24 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of Dispute concerns removing obstacles in using forestry land plots by declaring orders and decisions on land transfer from state to communal ownership illegal. The court was guided by the fact that the dispute arose exclusively between legal entities (Mykolaiv Regional State Administration, State Geocadaster, Veselynove Village Council) regarding land plot transfer decisions from state to communal ownership. According to procedural legislation, such disputes between legal entities are subject to consideration in economic, not civil proceedings.
The court refused to open proceedings regarding claims related to disputes between legal entities, as such cases are subject to consideration in economic courts.
Case No. 21/36-09-1695 dated 20/11/2024
The court rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal because the appellate appeal was filed 14 years after the decision entered into legal force, which is a significant missed deadline. The court stated that the reasons provided by the prosecutor for missing the deadline are not valid and have a subjective nature. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal certainty principle, according to which a court decision that has entered legal force cannot be groundlessly questioned.
Case No. 129/185/23 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court showed excessive formalism, as the plaintiff actually sent documents to rectify appellate appeal deficiencies via mail within the established deadline, although they arrived at the court later. The Supreme Court emphasized that such an approach violates a person’s right to access to justice, which must be not only formal but also real, in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights practice.
Case No. 372/2255/23 dated 20/11/2024
The appellate instance court, while canceling the first instance court decision, proceeded from the fact that the case materials do not contain evidence regarding the grounds for completing enforcement proceedings and information about collecting enforcement fees.He noted that the obligation to lift the arrest arises only in the case of completion of enforcement proceedings and collection of all necessary payments or upon return of the executive document to the court.
Case No. 205/7118/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute: cancellation of the state registrar’s decision on registration of ownership rights to a production and utility building housing the plaintiffs’ garages. The court was guided by the fact that the sole basis for registering ownership of the building for the defendant was a court ruling from 15.02.2006 on approving a settlement agreement – which was cancelled by the appellate court on 17.03.2021. It was established that the plaintiffs’ garages and the defendant’s building constitute a single construction complex, and therefore registration of ownership rights to the entire building for the defendant violates the plaintiffs’ rights as garage owners. Different garage addresses are explained by the fact that in the 90s they were registered at the owners’ place of residence. The court satisfied the claim and cancelled the state registrar’s decision on registering the defendant’s ownership rights to the disputed building.
Case No. 274/2036/13-ц dated 18/11/2024
The appellate court instance refused to open appellate proceedings because the bank missed the deadline for appellate appeal and did not eliminate the deficiencies in the appellate complaint within the court-established timeframe. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the first instance court’s decision was properly sent to the bank through its electronic cabinet, and arguments about martial law and technical problems cannot be considered valid reasons for missing the deadline, as they are not confirmed by evidence.
Case No. 908/1747/23 dated 13/11/2024
The cassation court instance found that the previous courts violated the case consideration procedure by simultaneously reviewing the tax authority’s petition and the liquidator’s report in the final meeting. This limited the tax authority’s right to form and submit substantiated monetary claims in the bankruptcy case and made it impossible for it to acquire creditor status. The courts also failed to ensure a balance of public and private interests in the bankruptcy case.
Case No. 924/150/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court refused to close the proceedings, based on the fact that the debtor’s failure to submit a debt restructuring plan within the established timeframe was caused by objective reasons – the debtor’s military service and communication difficulties in coordinating restructuring conditions proposed by the creditor. The court also took into account that the debtor’s actions do not show signs of bad faith, and the debtor has real signs of insolvency.
Case No. 212/2040/23 dated 18/11/2024
The court established that the employee was absent from work on January 20, 2022, without valid reasons. Although the employee claimed to have submitted an application for unpaid leave for sanatorium treatment, the court found that at the time of submitting the application, he was not undergoing such treatment and did not have a medical conclusion about the necessity of its completion. The employer properly documented the employee’s absence with acts and obtained the trade union’s consent for dismissal.
