Case No. 761/26342/22 dated 16/09/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the possibility of appealing the investigating judge’s ruling on establishing a deadline for completing the pre-trial investigation. The court was guided by the fact that although such rulings are not directly specified in the list of appealable rulings under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they actually influence the fate of the pre-trial investigation as a whole. The court also noted that the investigating judge effectively shortened the pre-trial investigation period by establishing a specific term for its completion, which is important for both the quality of the investigation and the progress of criminal proceedings in general. Moreover, the court noted that at the time of the decision, the norm on non-application of pre-trial investigation terms during martial law was in effect. The Supreme Court concluded that the investigating judge’s ruling on establishing a deadline for actions necessary to complete the pre-trial investigation is subject to appeal.
Case No. 335/5556/24 dated 26/11/2024
The court proceeded from the fact that the introduction of martial law in itself is not grounds for restoring procedural terms – it is necessary to prove that specific circumstances of martial law actually made it impossible to file an appeal on time. The appellant did not provide evidence that the shelling of Zaporizhzhia and an employee’s leave actually prevented filing an appeal within the specified time. The court also noted that organizational difficulties in the work of a state body are subjective reasons and cannot be grounds for restoring the term.
Case No. 990/60/24 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) acted within its powers by providing a general explanation regarding declaration filling. The Commission is not obligated to provide individual explanations for specific life situations, as the declarant independently determines the truthfulness of statements when filling out the declaration. The fact that the plaintiff disagrees with the content of the explanation does not indicate the unlawfulness of the HQCJ’s actions.
Case No. 924/195/24 dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the parties concluded a settlement agreement, by which they recognized the contested decisions of the general meeting and the new statute of the religious organization as invalid. The court analyzed that the settlement agreement does not violate the rights and interests of third parties, does not limit the religious community’s right to determine its canonical subordination, and the objections of third parties contradict their procedural status, since they act on the side of the defendant who agreed to the settlement agreement.
Case No. 522/17464/18 dated 22/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although as a general rule, property acquired during marriage is considered joint shared property of the spouses, this presumption was refuted by the existence of a notarized statement by the husband dated June 25, 2018, in which he acknowledged that the disputed real estate is the wife’s personal property, as it was purchased with her personal funds. The court also took into account that the husband signed this statement after the actual termination of marital relations, being aware of its meaning and consequences.
Case No. 910/14867/23 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: recovery of debt under a credit agreement and invalidation of the assignment of claim rights agreement. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the fact of the defendant receiving credit funds and not returning them is confirmed by the case materials; 2) the assignment of claim rights agreement…1. Regarding Case No. 368/477/22 dated 20/11/2024:
The court noted that the proper method of protecting the landlord’s rights, who believes the registered lease right is absent, is a claim for declaring the lease right non-existent, not a claim for declaring the state registration of the lease right invalid. The plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protecting her right by filing a claim to invalidate the state registration of the lease right, rather than declaring the lease right non-existent. The court also indicated that a claim for return of land plots can be filed and resolved on the merits only together with a claim for declaring the lease right non-existent.
2. Regarding Case No. 9901/452/21 dated 07/11/2024:
The court of first instance appointed a technical examination of documents submitted by the plaintiff to confirm the legality of his commercial activity in Ukraine, as there were reasonable doubts about the authenticity of these documents due to significant discrepancies between copies and originals (different placement of details, signatures, seals, etc.). The court was guided by the principle of officially clarifying all circumstances of the case, as the nature of the plaintiff’s activity is essential for assessing the legitimacy of sanctions.
3. Regarding Case No. 9901/424/21 dated 21/11/2024:
The court established that the submission from the High Council of Justice about appointing a judge was registered in the President’s Office on 28.12.2020, which is more than a year before the introduction of martial law. This period was sufficient for reviewing the submission and issuing a decree in accordance with legal requirements. The court took into account that the appointment of judges by the President has a ceremonial nature and should occur within 30 days of receiving the HCJ’s submission.
4. Regarding Case No. 449/164/24 dated 05/11/2024:
The subject of the dispute was challenging the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings regarding a ruling on temporary access to documents of LLC “AKRIS-ZAKHID”. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court ignored an important legal norm – the possibility of appealing rulings on temporary access to documents without which a legal entity cannot conduct its activities. The appellate court did not consider the company’s arguments that seizure of land lease agreements would effectively prevent its economic activity and did not provide proper justification for its refusal to open proceedings. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for new consideration.
5. Regarding Case No. 990/108/23 dated 07/11/2024:
The court recognized that the Verkhovna Rada acted within its powers, as the Law on the Legal Regime of Martial Law grants the parliament the right to dismiss officials due to expressing distrust as an additional ground to those provided by special laws. This norm does not contradict the Constitution, as it does not expand the constitutional powers of the Verkhovna Rada but only supplements the grounds for dismissal. The dismissal procedure was followed, and the decision was not arbitrary, as it was discussed at a plenary session.Case No. 911/1175/18 (911/2260/23) dated 12/11/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that at the time of concluding the disputed supplementary agreement, the property rights to the contested apartment belonged to LLC ‘Olimpeks Trans’ in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement and the Area Distribution Act. Therefore, the Housing Cooperative ‘Naberezhny Kvartal-Zhabotynsky’ did not have the right to alienate these property rights in favor of another person. The court also took into account that the plaintiff (PJSC ‘Hanner-Skhid’) acquired property rights to the contested apartment from LLC ‘Olimpeks Trans’ under a property rights sale and purchase agreement.
Case No. 908/1764/20 dated 21/11/2024
The appellate court refused to recognize the penalty sanctions because they were applied after the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish the moment of occurrence of the main tax liability and its non-fulfillment, rather than the date of documentary registration of penalties. If the tax liability arose before the bankruptcy case was opened, then the penalty sanctions can be considered competitive claims, regardless of the time of their registration by the tax authority.
Case No. 910/14867/23 dated 21/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of 17.8 million hryvnias under the agreement and a counterclaim to declare this agreement invalid. The court reviewed the cassation complaint of LLC ‘Wind Energy’ against the decisions of lower courts. Cassation proceedings were opened on several grounds provided by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. For some grounds, the proceedings were closed, and for another ground of cassation appeal, the complaint was found to be unfounded. The court also resumed the execution of previous instance decisions, which had been previously suspended. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 924/1351/20 (924/926/23) dated 13/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the claimed amount of expenses of 23,000 hryvnias is disproportionate to the subject of the dispute and overstated, considering that the lawyer was familiar with the case, participated in previous instances, and the court session was held in video conference mode. The court also took into account the criteria of reasonableness and justification of expenses established by the ECHR practice.
Case No. 920/199/23 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: foreclosure on an apartment that passed into the ownership of the territorial community as ownerless inheritance to repay a loan debt. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court pointed out that the previous courts incorrectly closed the proceedings in the case, since the claims for recovery of damages (previous case) and foreclosure on the mortgage subject (current case) have different legal nature. The territorial community as the acquirer of real estate inherited the rights and obligations of the mortgagor under Art. 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage”, therefore, the bank has the right to demand foreclosure on the mortgage subject even if the territorial community’s ownership is not registered. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the previous courts on closing the proceedings and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance to consider the claims for foreclosure on the mortgage subject on the merits.
Case No. 990/115/24 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the HQCJ decision on the judge’s non-compliance with the held position does not have independent le…Legal Consequences and Case Summaries
Case No. 817/1050/18 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Rivne City Council’s decisions regarding land allocation partially overlapping with a multi-apartment building’s adjacent territory.
Key Court Arguments:
1) The court recognized that multi-apartment building residents have the right to challenge land allocation decisions affecting their adjacent territory, as this impacts their rights as co-owners.
2) The appellate court incorrectly assumed that plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal, as decisions were not directly personal to them.
3) A detailed investigation was necessary to determine whether the allocated land boundaries actually overlap with the adjacent territory and violate residents’ rights.
Court Decision: Annul the appellate court’s ruling regarding the rejection of claims challenging land allocation decisions and remand the case for reconsideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 924/185/24 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the village council’s inaction and compelling the execution of an additional agreement to renew a land lease.
The court determined that after establishing a farming enterprise, the land lease rights automatically transferred from the individual founder to the farming enterprise. Therefore, the plaintiff as an individual lacked legal standing to file the claim. Additionally, the chosen method of protection (compelling the execution of an additional agreement) was inappropriate – the correct approach would have been to demand recognition of the additional agreement with specific content.
The Supreme Court partially granted the village council’s cassation appeal and maintained the first instance court’s decision rejecting the claim.
Case No. 922/5426/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court’s decision was based on:
1) The plaintiff failed to prove a causal relationship between agricultural equipment damage and the defendant’s actions, lacking convincing evidence that equipment damage resulted from the accident.
2) No proof of enterprise reputation damage or reduction in contractor pool.
3) Unsubstantiated lost profit from unreceived harvest.
Case No. 240/1800/24 dated 26/11/2024
The court determined that additional compensation is a temporary payment during martial law and falls under categories of remuneration not included in health improvement assistance calculations per Procedure No. 260. The court also noted no regulatory act mandates including this additional compensation in monetary support when calculating health improvement assistance.
Case No. 154/2120/18 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging an acquittal for a former customs officer accused of receiving an improper benefit of 300 UAH for unobstructed customs control passage.
The court’s decision was based on:
1) Evidence regarding the first bribery episode was deemed inadmissible, as covert investigative actions were conducted without a prosecutor’s corresponding resolution.
2) For the second episode, insufficient evidence existed proving money transfer.Regarding the alleged bribery, the suspect was not detained and the funds were not seized; 3) witness testimonies did not confirm the factual circumstances outlined in the indictment. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the defendant, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/20605/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the alienation of the mortgaged property without the mortgagee’s consent is void, and the mortgage remains valid for the new property owner. The court also took into account that the division of the apartment into two parts did not result in the creation of two separate real estate objects, therefore the mortgage remained valid for the entire apartment. Additionally, the court determined that the dispute is subject to consideration in the commercial court, as the primary obligation (credit agreement) was concluded between legal entities.
Case No. 21/5005/2686/2012 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the credit agreement claims were alienated by PJSC “Omega Bank” under a void contract and subsequently resold to several parties, with LLC “Globus-A” being the last. Since PJSC “Omega Bank” and LLC “Finance Company” did not take actions to reclaim these rights from LLC “Globus-A” in accordance with Articles 387, 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the procedural rights in the case were not transferred to them. To replace the party in the case, an actual transfer of material rights is necessary, not just the conclusion of a transfer agreement.
Case No. 712/3525/23 dated 23/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the vehicle alienation was carried out by a legally authorized body (a working group including military command), pursued a legitimate purpose (ensuring Ukraine’s defense needs during martial law) and was a proportionate interference with property rights, as it provides a mechanism for compensation of property value after the lifting of martial law. Moreover, the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protecting her rights, as canceling the acts of property alienation would not result in the return of ownership rights but would only deprive her of the opportunity to receive compensation.
Case No. 754/16432/17 dated 20/11/2024
The appellate court canceled the first instance court’s decision and denied the claims, motivating this by the fact that the case was considered with an improper set of defendants, as not all parties to the disputed transactions were involved. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court incorrectly considered it necessary to involve a representative as a co-defendant, as in cases of declaring a contract void, the only proper defendant is the other party to the contract, not the representative.
Case No. 910/11103/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the bank detected suspicious client activity, namely the use of personal accounts of an individual for entrepreneurial activities and conducting financial transactions without an obvious economic purpose. In accordance with financial monitoring legislation, the bank had the right to establish an unacceptably high risk for the client and refuse business relations to prevent the legalization of criminally obtained income. The court recognized that the bank acted within its powers and in accordance with the law.
Case No. 639/3093/23 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Appealing the court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for illegal acquisition and storage of precursors (pseudoephedrine) in a particularlyTranslation:
The Supreme Court left the court of first instance judgment and the appellate court ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 337/3528/19 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court judgment and appellate court ruling regarding conviction under Part 4 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (rape). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the convicted person, found no grounds for canceling or modifying the challenged court decisions of lower instances.
The Supreme Court left the first instance court judgment and the appellate court ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the convicted person.
Case No. 404/8624/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the claim to recognize actions as unlawful is not an appropriate method of protecting the violated right; 2) the Regional Water Resources Office is an improper defendant regarding the claim for connection to the electrical grid; 3) the plaintiff did not prove the existence of contractual relations with PJSC ‘Kirovohradoblenerho’ and did not provide evidence of applying to them with a request to conclude a contract; 4) there are no conditions for compensation of moral damage, as its existence was not proven.
Case No. 624/429/22 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Challenging the court judgment regarding conviction for causing moderate bodily injuries through negligence (Article 128 of the Criminal Code). When making the decision, the court was guided by: 1) Medical documentation was obtained legally from the victim, therefore expert conclusions based on it are admissible evidence; 2) Photo identification protocols were conducted in compliance with procedural requirements and with the participation of witnesses; 3) Witness testimonies and other evidence collectively confirm the defendant’s guilt. The Supreme Court rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court ruling, which confirmed the first instance court judgment, unchanged.
Case No. 205/3234/20 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – the city council’s demand for demolition of an unauthorized gas station built on municipal land and the counterdemand by LLC to recognize it as a bona fide acquirer of this real estate. The court established that the disputed gas station is an unauthorized construction, as it was built on a land plot not allocated for this purpose. Registration of ownership of such property does not change its legal regime as unauthorized construction. Moreover, the claim to recognize it as a bona fide acquirer is not an appropriate method of protecting rights, as bona fide acquisition is only one of the circumstances relevant to property recovery.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the city council’s cassation appeal – canceled the previous instances’ decisions and referred the case for new consideration regarding the demand for demolition of unauthorized construction, as well as inRefused to satisfy the counterclaim for recognizing the LLC as a bona fide acquirer.
Case No. 755/25/21 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding conviction for a robbery attack on a store using a knife. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court made significant procedural law violations, in particular: did not ensure translation of the convicted person’s appeal from Georgian, thereby violating his right to defense; did not evaluate important defense arguments regarding non-provision of procedural documents translation to the accused and violations in serving the suspicion notice; unreasonably equated the fact of the defender’s familiarization with case materials as familiarization of the entire defense side. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate court.
Case No. 9901/86/21 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing dismissal and reinstatement, where the plaintiff PERSON_1 challenges the decision of the President of Ukraine. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the reasoning part, where legal positions and court justifications are usually outlined. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to leave PERSON_1’s appellate appeal unsatisfied and leave unchanged the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court dated June 19, 2024.
Case No. 910/18250/16 (910/17658/23) dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the applicant did not prove the causal relationship between the actions of LLC ‘Amadeus Co’ and the debtor’s bankruptcy. The court decisions referenced by the applicant did not confirm the fact of asset withdrawal or driving to bankruptcy, but only established the existence of LLC ‘Amadeus Co’s accounts receivable from the bankrupt. Moreover, the amount the applicant sought to recover was not the bankrupt’s liabilities but accounts receivable to him.
Case No. 460/2558/24 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that Article 13 of the “On Pension Provision” Law provides not a separate type of pension, but only preferential conditions for age pension assignment by reducing the pension age. Since the preferential age pension is assigned and paid according to the procedure and conditions of the “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance” Law, persons receiving such a pension are not entitled to re-assignment of the same type of pension (age pension) using a new average salary indicator. In this case, the Supreme Court deviated from its previous legal positions in similar cases.
Case No. 766/3683/20 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation of a prosecutor through a newspaper publication and addressing state bodies regarding illegal garage installation. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court violated the principle of equality of parties, as it did not verify whether the plaintiff was properly notified about appellate appeals and court hearings. The appellate court did not provide the plaintiff an opportunity to familiarize herself with appellate appeals and provide her objections, thereby violating her right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.Case No. 464/915/21 dated 18/11/2024
The courts refused to satisfy the claim because the lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant (PERSON_1), who was no longer the owner of the disputed property at the time of the case review. The actual owner of the property is LLC “Bondar”, which was not involved in the case as a defendant. Without involving the appropriate circle of defendants, the claims cannot be resolved on the merits.
Case No. 922/2623/21 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the debtor incorrectly calculated the amount of claims of the secured creditor, not including a part of the debt under the credit agreement in the amount of 62,660.11 UAH, which led to incorrect calculations in the restructuring plan; 2) the debtor did not provide proper evidence of insufficient income to fulfill the restructuring conditions; 3) the debtor submitted incomplete information about the property status of a family member.
Case No. 922/2008/21 dated 13/11/2024
The court established that privatization of municipal property through purchase by the tenant was possible only if the tenant made inalienable improvements to the leased property of at least 25% of its value, which was not done. The court also noted that the claim to declare the city council’s decision invalid is an ineffective method of protection, as the decision has already been executed by concluding a contract.
Case No. 754/8892/21 dated 20/11/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure and is allowed only in the presence of guilty behavior of parents and conscious neglect of their duties. The appellate court did not take into account the facts of domestic violence, did not properly analyze the father’s behavior regarding child upbringing and the child’s negative attitude towards him. The issuance of a restraining order against the father and his bringing to administrative responsibility for domestic violence were also not taken into account.
Case No. 449/164/24 dated 05/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of a lawyer from LLC “AKRIS-ZAKHID”. Since the operative part of the decision lacks the court’s motives, it can only be noted that the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings was unfounded and that the issue of opening appellate proceedings needs to be reconsidered. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new case review.
Case No. 904/3936/23 dated 06/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is declaring an additional agreement invalid, which extended the term of advance use during martial law, and recovering penalties for untimely return of unused advance. The court was guided by the fact that the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolutions clearly establish a three-month term for using an advance for material purchase during budget-funded construction. Extending this term, even under martial law conditions, is not provided for by law. Therefore, the additional agreement on term extension contradicts legislative requirements. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision on declaring the additional agreement invalid and recovering penalties from the contractor for untimely return of unused advance.
Case No. 917/1938/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court established that the asphalt area…
(Note: The last case appears to be cut off mid-sentence)Here is the translation:
is not a separate real estate object, but is an accessory item, and therefore does not require separate state registration. The state registrar erroneously included information about the asphalt area in the description of the real estate object of LLC ‘Vidrodzhennia’, as such information is not subject to inclusion in the description of a real estate object. Although such registration does not violate the plaintiff’s lease right, it violates their interest in legal certainty.
Case No. 925/1442/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the lawyer essentially did not provide all services stipulated in the legal assistance agreement (did not participate in the court session); 2) the amount of compensation must correspond to the criteria of proportionality, reasonableness, and fairness; 3) the issue of court fee reimbursement had already been resolved by a previous court order.
Case No. 908/1817/23 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the city council’s decision to renew the land lease agreement and demolish the unauthorized checkpoint building. The cassation instance court established that the previous instance courts did not properly investigate all evidence and case circumstances, specifically: they did not assess the contradiction between the building’s technical passport and lease agreement terms; did not clarify whether the presence of a 7 sq.m structure could be grounds for renewing a 4-hectare land lease without a tender; did not establish the legality of changing the land plot’s intended purpose. The Supreme Court canceled the previous courts’ decisions and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 240/24842/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that additional remuneration is a temporary payment during martial law and belongs to the category of remunerations which, according to Procedure No. 260, are not included in the calculation of health improvement assistance. The court also took into account that no regulatory legal act provides for including this additional remuneration in monetary support when calculating health improvement assistance.
Case No. 465/918/21 dated 25/11/2024
The court established that the employer improperly imposed three disciplinary penalties in the form of reprimands on the employee. In particular, absence from the workplace for 13-46 minutes is not a gross violation that could be grounds for a reprimand. Patient complaints about poor treatment were not properly verified by a competent commission. When imposing penalties, the severity of misconduct and the doctor’s previous impeccable work over many years were not taken into account.
Case No. 990/39/24 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the High Council of Justice’s decision to uphold a disciplinary penalty in the form of a reprimand for a prosecutor.
Main court arguments: 1) The prosecutor, as a procedural leader, did not properly perform their duties, as they did not have information about the location of materials in one criminal proceeding for 19 months and did not respond to the non-appointment of investigators in another proceeding for 7 months. 2) Although the Criminal Procedure Code does not directly define the prosecutor’s authority to initiate investigator appointments, such powers stem from the content of procedural leadership to fulfill criminal proceeding tasks. 3) The prosecutor’s inaction led to the failure to conduct pre-trial investigation for a prolonged period, which contradicts criminal proceeding objectives.Left the prosecutor’s claim unsatisfied and confirmed the legality of imposing a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand.
Case No. 990/231/24 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the Ethics Council is only an auxiliary body that assists in the selection of candidates but does not make final decisions on appointments. Its conclusions do not create independent legal consequences and cannot be the subject of separate judicial appeal. Only final decisions of bodies directly appointing members of the High Council of Justice (Congress of Judges, President, Verkhovna Rada, etc.) are subject to judicial review.
Case No. 751/7807/23 dated 18/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the court’s verdict on imposing a fine on a person who was driving a vehicle while intoxicated and caused a traffic accident with serious bodily injuries. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person sincerely repented, voluntarily compensates for the damage by paying for the operations of the victim who is dependent on him. The court also took into account that the crime was committed by negligence, circumstances mitigating the punishment (sincere repentance, active assistance in solving the crime), and the absence of aggravating circumstances. Imposing actual imprisonment would deprive the victim of the opportunity to continue treatment, which is paid for by the convicted person. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision on imposing a fine and deprivation of the right to drive vehicles, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 183/6908/19 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – division of joint marital property and removal of obstacles in using common property. The cassation court established that the appellate court considered the case without proper notification of the defendant about the date and time of the court session, which is a violation of the basic principles of civil proceedings. The case materials contain a postal notification that was returned after the storage period expired, which cannot be considered proper notification of the case participant. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s resolution and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 522/13613/21 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation court noted that the appellate court erroneously did not properly examine the joint notarized statement by the mother and father about recognition of paternity. The court also incorrectly evaluated evidence, giving preference to photos of the mother with another man without proper substantiation of the absence of blood relation between the child and the plaintiff. When resolving paternity issues, the court must evaluate all evidence in combination.
Case No. 127/20982/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that for a person in custody, the term for filing an appellate complaint is calculated from the moment of handing over a copy of the court decision. The appellate court did not verify when exactly the complainant was given a copy of the contested decision and erroneously decided that the appeal term was missed. According to the documents, the complainant received a copy of the decision on February 22, 2024, and filed a complaint on February 26, 2024, that is, within the 5-day appeal period.
Case No. 908/2259/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute: declaring purchase and sale agreements for vehicles invalid and returning ownership to the original owner. The court established that…The case is not subject to consideration in economic courts, as there are individuals among the defendants, and the subject of the dispute directly relates to their rights and obligations regarding the disputed vehicles. The court noted that, in accordance with procedural legislation and the practice of the Supreme Court, such disputes should be considered under civil, not economic proceedings. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and the need to consider interconnected claims within a single type of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of lower courts and closed the proceedings, explaining to the plaintiffs their right to apply to a court of civil jurisdiction.
Case No. 127/9748/21 dated 21/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the legality of bringing a person to criminal liability for theft of low-value property after changes in legislation. The court was guided by the fact that on August 9, 2024, a law came into effect that raised the threshold for the value of stolen property for criminal liability to two non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens. Since the value of stolen property for each episode was less than the established threshold (2,270-2,684 UAH depending on the year), and the new law has retroactive effect, the actions of the accused lost the characteristics of a criminal offense. The court also took into account the legal position set out in the resolution of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court regarding the application of the new law. The Supreme Court reversed previous court decisions and closed the criminal proceedings, as the law establishing criminal liability for these actions had lost its force.
Case No. 240/31525/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court, when making a decision, was guided by the fact that the additional remuneration introduced by Resolution No. 168 is an additional type of monetary provision, which the legislator classified as remuneration for the period of martial law. According to Procedure No. 260, remunerations, regardless of their type, are not included in the amount of monetary provision from which health improvement assistance is calculated. The court also took into account that Procedure No. 260 regulated the provisions of Law No. 2011-XII, establishing a direct norm excluding remuneration from the category of monetary provision components.
Case No. 9901/468/21 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the obligation to publish such information in the form of open data arose only from April 28, 2021, after the relevant Cabinet of Ministers resolution came into force. Therefore, the HQCJ was not obliged to publish data for 2016-2019. At the same time, the court recognized that the data for 2020 was published in an improper format (text instead of machine-readable), which violates the legal requirements.
Case No. 320/46484/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that due to the increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law on January 1, 2023, the plaintiff acquired the right to receive an updated certificate about…
Case No. 990/105/24 dated 18/11/2024
The court established that to participate in the competition for the position of an appellate court judge, it is necessary to have 5 years of work experience as a judge after appointment and staffing in the court, not the total legal work experience. The provision on counting previous legal experience applies only to issues of judicial remuneration and retirement, but not to competitive selection. Since the plaintiff was appointed a judge only in 2020, he does not have the required 5-year judicial work experience.
