Case No. 460/14031/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that minor children who are assigned a disability pension are non-working pensioners due to their incapacity and have the right to a pension increase as compensation for the risk of health loss. At the same time, the amount of such increase should be calculated based on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, not the minimum wage.
Case No. 140/1069/24 dated 26/11/2024
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. The law does not link the right to a pension supplement for a non-working pensioner to a specific type of pension, age, or working capacity. The court also took into account that such supplements are compensation for the risk of health loss due to the Chornobyl disaster, regardless of the availability of other benefits.
Case No. 761/15604/17 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that tax police officials, together with a lawyer, organized a criminal scheme for receiving a bribe of 36,000 US dollars, of which they managed to receive 10,000 dollars. The money was demanded in exchange for a promise to qualify the suspects’ actions under milder articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and to facilitate the return of arrested funds by influencing the decisions of the prosecutor’s office and the court. The guilt of the accused was fully proven by a set of evidence, including the results of covert investigative actions and witness testimonies.
Case No. 613/820/19 dated 21/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for misappropriation of property and document forgery. The court reviewed the cassation complaint of the defender acting in the interests of the convicted person regarding the review of lower instance court decisions in criminal proceedings on charges of crimes provided for by articles on property misappropriation, official forgery, and illegal actions with payment cards. The Supreme Court found no grounds for canceling or changing the challenged court decisions.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 991/12742/24 dated 28/11/2024
The main arguments of the court: 1) The accused PERSON_4 entered into a plea agreement, unconditionally admitting guilt and committing to cooperate with the investigation; 2) The damage to the state was fully compensated through the cancellation of illegal alienation of SE “NKU” property by court order; 3) The victim (State Cinema Agency of Ukraine) provided written consent to enter into a plea agreement.
Case No. 991/12742/24 dated 28/11/2024
The main arguments of the court: 1) The accused PERSON_4 entered into a plea agreement with the prosecutor, admitted guilt, and actively assisted in solving the crime; 2) The damage to the state was fully compensated through the cancellation of illegal alienation of SE “NKU” property by court order; 3) The victim (State Cinema Agency of Ukraine) provided consent to enter into a plea agreement.Case No. 446/1501/22 dated 21/11/2024
The first instance court acquitted the defendant under the article on misappropriation of property (Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code), as there was no proof of mercenary motive and intent to misappropriate funds – work continued to be performed after signing the act, and the delay was caused by objective circumstances. The Court of Appeal additionally revoked the verdict for official forgery (Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code).
Case No. 166/865/23 dated 25/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding the conviction for hooliganism committed at a gas station, where the defendant beat the victim and damaged his car. The court was guided by the fact that although the damage was compensated to the victim and he had no claims, hooliganism is a crime against public order, not against a specific person. At the same time, the court established the presence of all signs of effective remorse – the defendant’s sincere repentance, active assistance in solving the crime, and full compensation for damages. The Supreme Court also took into account that lower instances did not explain to the defendant his right to be released from criminal liability due to effective remorse. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and released the defendant from criminal liability due to effective remorse.
Case No. 344/4932/22 dated 21/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant’s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of victims who identified him as the person who called them, introduced himself as their relatives, and extorted money under the pretext of a traffic accident. The guilt is also confirmed by the testimony of law enforcement witnesses who detained the defendant and documentary evidence. Regarding the escape from custody – the fact of escape is confirmed by the testimony of escorts and video recordings.
Case No. 686/5401/15-k dated 20/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that after returning the indictment to the prosecutor, additional investigative actions were improperly conducted and new evidence was collected, which the courts of first and appellate instances took into account when making decisions. This contradicts the legal position of the United Chamber of the Supreme Court, which states that after returning the indictment, resuming pre-trial investigation and obtaining new evidence is not allowed. The appellate court also did not properly assess the admissibility of evidence obtained after returning the indictment.
Case No. 748/1972/19 dated 21/11/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) separating materials into a separate proceeding was justified due to the impossibility of involving an interpreter; 2) the court’s refusal to accept the convicted person’s refusal of a defender was legal, as the defender’s participation was mandatory, and there was no evidence of improper performance of duties; 3) the procedure for choosing a preventive measure by the reporting judge complied with the law.
Case No. 446/1501/22 dated 21/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s challenge to the acquittal verdict regarding official forgery and misappropriation of property. The Court of Appeal revoked the verdict in the part of the charge of official forgery (Article 366 of the Criminal Code) and closed the proceedings due to the absence of a crime.Regarding the need for a new appellate review in the part of the charge for official forgery, as the decision to close the proceedings requires additional verification. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling in the part of closing the proceedings under Article 366 of the Criminal Code, and appointed a new appellate review in this part.
Case No. 613/820/19 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of the verdict against a bank employee who, by forging payment cards, seized bank credit funds amounting to 221,400 hryvnias. The court rejected the cassation appeal because: 1) the convicted person fully admitted her guilt and agreed to a simplified case review; 2) the damages were fully compensated, confirmed by the bank; 3) punishment was assigned within the lowest sanctions of the relevant articles; 4) procedural law violations cited by the defense were formal in nature and did not affect the legality of the verdict. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court ruling, which found the convicted guilty of committing corruption and other criminal offenses.
Case No. 560/20682/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff missed the one-month term for court appeal by more than 5 years. The reasons cited for missing the term (house arrest, prolonged criminal proceedings, health condition, quarantine restrictions, martial law) were not recognized as valid, as their direct causal relationship with the inability to timely appeal to the court was not proven. Moreover, during this time, the plaintiff actively addressed various authorities, which indicates a real ability to protect his rights.
Case No. 645/3612/15-к dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the court verdict regarding conviction for a terrorist act and illegal possession of explosives. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) presence of numerous evidence, including witness testimonies, expert findings, investigation protocols, and technical data confirming the defendant’s involvement in planting an explosive device; 2) properly conducted investigative actions, including searches and covert investigative measures; 3) absence of evidence of using unauthorized investigation methods, which the defendant claimed. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced PERSON_9 to life imprisonment for committing a terrorist act and illegal possession of explosives.
Case No. 276/831/20 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court verdict regarding imposing actual imprisonment for theft and stealing a firearm. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted PERSON_7 was previously not convicted, committed crimes at a young age (20 years old), partially admitted guilt and compensated a third of the damage, and is positively characterized at his place of residence and work. An important factor was that during three years after committing the crime, he did not commit new offenses, and according to the probation authority’s conclusion, his correction is possible without actual imprisonment. The Supreme Court modified the appellate court verdict and released the convicted person fromServing a probationary sentence, establishing a probation period of 1 year and 6 months.
Case No. 574/726/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing a court verdict regarding a serviceman who arbitrarily left his place of service during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that the accused PERSON_7, being a mobilized serviceman, without valid reasons, arbitrarily left his place of service for 13 days (from September 28 to October 11, 2022) during martial law. His guilt was proven by witness testimonies, military unit documents, and other evidence. The court also took into account that the accused is negatively characterized at his place of service and prone to alcohol abuse. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance verdict, which sentenced PERSON_7 to 5 years of imprisonment for arbitrarily leaving a military unit during martial law.
Case No. 420/29256/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute – the Pension Fund’s refusal to grant a service pension to a former employee of the State Criminal Executive Service. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff acquired the right to a preferential pension in 2017 when he had 27 years of preferential service against the required 23.5 years. Although changes were made to the service years calculation procedure in 2022, they cannot be applied to legal relations that arose earlier. The court also took into account that the right to preferential service years calculation is provided for by a special law on the State Criminal Executive Service. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the claim and oblige the Pension Fund to grant the plaintiff a service pension.
Case No. 296/1291/22 dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the accused PERSON_7 voluntarily became a participant in the terrorist organization “DPR”, holding a position in the anti-tank division of its subdivision GOTG “INFORMATION_2”. The court properly investigated evidence of the accused’s participation in an illegal armed formation, including video materials and expert opinions. The court also recognized as lawful the special court proceedings in the absence of the accused, as he is hiding in the occupied territory.
Case No. 554/10204/15-k dated 21/11/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing an acquittal verdict regarding a private enterprise director accused of fraudulently acquiring part of a hotel complex worth over 4 million hryvnias. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The transfer of property rights occurred not through voluntary transfer, but based on a civil case court decision; 2) There is no proof of intent to seize the property at the moment of its receipt – intent arose after the registration of ownership rights for the victim; 3) Filing a civil lawsuit cannot be considered as deception or breach of trust in the context of fraud. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, as the presence of a criminal offense in the accused’s actions was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Case No. 991/1512/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings against an SBU operative PERSON_10, accused of receiving an unlawful benefit in the amount ofUSD 60,000 for Returning Cryptocurrency Mining Equipment Seized During a Search. Key Court Arguments: 1) PERSON_10, using their official position, gathered information about the crypto farm’s activities and its owners, created conditions for initiating criminal proceedings and seizing property during a search; 2) through intermediaries, demanded the transfer of USD 60,000 for returning the seized equipment; 3) organized receiving an illegal benefit through a crypto exchange, using conspiracy measures. The court rejected the defense arguments about crime provocation and that the funds were intended as a charitable contribution to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Court Decision: PERSON_10 was found guilty of committing a crime under Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, with deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies for 3 years, with property confiscation and deprivation of the military rank of colonel.
Case No. 910/11976/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt amounting to 186.6 million UAH from DTEK Dniproenergo JSC to NEC Ukrenergo PJSC. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part but supported the position of lower courts that satisfied the claims. The cassation court recognized that the decisions of previous instances were legal and substantiated, and the appellant’s arguments in the cassation complaint were not confirmed. Following the case review, the Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings for one of the grounds of appeal, refused to satisfy the cassation complaint on other grounds, and left the decisions of previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 127/9377/21 dated 27/11/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the father (PERSON_1) conscientiously fulfilled his parental duties, provided his son with necessary living conditions and development, and financially supported him. The court also took into account the son’s greater attachment to the father due to their long-term cohabitation. At the same time, the court noted that the fact of the child living abroad does not affect the resolution of the dispute about determining the child’s place of residence, and the mother did not provide evidence of creating appropriate living conditions for her son abroad.
Case No. 607/18630/22 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute – changing the employee’s termination reason and recovering wage arrears and other payments upon dismissal. The court was guided by the following: 1) the employer had no right to independently change the ground for dismissal specified by the employee from Part 3, Article 38 of the Labor Code to Part 1, Article 38 of the Labor Code; 2) the presence of wage arrears and violation of the procedure for changing essential working conditions confirm the fact of the employer’s violation of labor legislation; 3) when dismissing under Part 3, Article 38 of the Labor Code, the employee is entitled to severance pay of three average salaries. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the appellate court to satisfy the employee’s claim regarding changing the termination wording and recovering wage arrears, severance pay, and compensation for delayed settlement upon dismissal.
Case No. 521/6725/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court established that the dismissal occurred on legal grounds, as the employee violated customs rules when crossing the border (attempted to illegally transport 1,190 packs of cigarettes to Poland), which wasDirectly stipulated as a ground for contract termination in paragraph 18 of the employment contract. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not dispute the fact of violating customs regulations, and the absence of a specific reference to the contract paragraph in the dismissal order is not a basis for declaring the dismissal illegal.
Case No. 759/19105/22 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a person who was not involved in the case has the right to appeal the court decision only if it directly concerns their rights and interests. PERSON_2 did not provide any evidence that they lived with the testator in the same family for at least 5 years, and therefore did not prove that the first instance court’s decision on declaring the inheritance abandoned violates their rights as an heir. The court also took into account that the private notary previously refused to issue a certificate of inheritance rights due to the lack of supporting documents.
Case No. 718/1862/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff and the bank had concluded bank deposit agreements under which the plaintiff made deposits. Although the branch manager appropriated these funds, which is confirmed by criminal proceedings materials, this does not exempt the bank from the obligation to return the deposit, as the bank is responsible for the actions of its employees. The court also took into account that the plaintiff reasonably expected proper execution of the deposit agreement, and monitoring employee actions is the bank’s responsibility.
Case No. 400/3003/21 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor challenging his dismissal and demanding reinstatement with payment of wages for the time of forced absence. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments from the provided operative part of the decision, as the reasoning part is missing. However, it is evident that the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor’s dismissal was legal, overturning the decisions of previous instances that were in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied the prosecutor’s claim, recognizing his dismissal as lawful.
Case No. 520/28329/23 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 15-day period for challenging the dismissal order, established by the Disciplinary Statute of the National Police. Although she received the order on September 18, 2023, she filed the lawsuit only on October 7, 2023, i.e., after the deadline expired on October 3. At the same time, the plaintiff did not provide the court with convincing evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline and did not explain why she did not return to service during the year after the de-occupation of the territory.
Case No. 420/23119/23 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the serviceman was deprived of additional remuneration based on a separate order from the Minister of Defense of Ukraine, which provides for non-inclusion in orders for additional remuneration of servicemen who refused to execute combat orders. The fact of the plaintiff’s refusal to perform combat tasks and commander’s orders in January and February 2023 was confirmed by orders of disciplinary action, which were not challenged. The court also noted that deprivation of additional remuneration is not a type of disciplinary punishment and can be applied.Case No. 440/2847/24 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the military unit filed an appellate complaint after the appeal deadline (after June 21, 2024) and did not submit an application to restore the missed deadline, although the court provided such an opportunity. The court emphasized that the deadline for appellate appeal can be restored only upon an application by a case participant, not on the court’s initiative. Since the military unit did not exercise its right to file such an application, the court rightfully refused to open appellate proceedings.
Case No. 906/1290/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that in case of partial overlapping of land plots, where only part of the disputed plot belongs to the plaintiff and the other part to the defendant, the appropriate method of protection is not a vindicatory claim (property recovery), but a negative claim to remove obstacles in use by recognizing and canceling orders on plot formation, canceling its state registration and registration of property rights. The court also took into account that it is impossible to return part of an already formed unified land plot.
Case No. 198/23/22 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove that violations during the auction affected its results. Her arguments about improper notification and undervalued property value relate to actions of the state executor in enforcement proceedings, which have a separate appeal procedure and cannot be grounds for declaring the auction invalid. Moreover, the court established that the plaintiff actually received notifications about the enforcement proceeding.
Case No. 730/1097/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute: protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, refutation of unreliable information, and compensation for moral damage due to the defendant’s publications on Facebook. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff is a public figure (entrepreneur, football official, ex-deputy), therefore the limits of permissible criticism towards him are broader; 2) the disputed statements by the defendant are value judgments and critical remarks, not factual statements that can be verified for accuracy; 3) legislation does not provide for liability for expressing value judgments, even if they are harsh or offensive. The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 761/22018/17 dated 14/02/2024
Subject of dispute – recognition of property rights to an apartment in a new building for an investor of a construction financing fund. The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff could not provide the original agreement on participation in the construction financing fund and did not prove the existence of legal relations between her as a principal and the new fund manager. The court noted that although the plaintiff provided a copy of the agreement and a certificate of participation in the fund, these pieces of evidence were insufficient, as the defendants challenged their authenticity, and the original documents were lost. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances since the plaintiff did not prove the investment fact with proper evidence.Funds and Acquisition of Apartment Rights
Case No. 910/6947/24 dated 21/11/2024
The first and appellate instance courts mistakenly believed that an electronic power of attorney issued through the ‘Electronic Court’ system requires notarization. The Supreme Court clarified that an electronic authorization formed in the ‘Electronic Court’ subsystem does not require additional certification and is a valid document for confirming the representative’s powers. The court also indicated that the certification rules for paper-based powers of attorney cannot be applied to electronic authorizations.
Case No. 926/4788/21 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that this dispute had already been the subject of judicial review in case No. 926/1242/15, where the claim was denied. Repeated consideration of the same dispute between the same parties contradicts the principle of legal certainty and res judicata. Submitting new evidence does not change the grounds for the claim and does not provide the right to a repeated case review.
Case No. 910/14138/22 dated 12/11/2024
The cassation instance court focused on the procedural issue of whether KP ‘Kharkiv Heating Networks’ had the right to file an appellate complaint as a party not involved in the case. The court indicated that the appellate court should have thoroughly investigated how the contested decision affects the rights and obligations of this enterprise, rather than simply stating the existence of such an impact.
Case No. 916/111/24 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of 3,051,054.21 UAH from LLC “Odesenergotreid” in favor of LLC “Electrotrading Group”. Unfortunately, the provided court decision text lacks the motivational part, making it impossible to determine the arguments used by the court in making the decision. A complete analysis requires the full text of the court decision with a description of the case circumstances and legal reasoning. Based on the case review, the Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation appeal by LLC “Electrotrading Group” and left the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 2-42/2011 dated 21/11/2024
The court established that the state executor correctly terminated the enforcement proceedings, as the debtor had actually fulfilled the court decision in full – dismantled the metal ladder, doors, window, and non-residential attic space, and restored the technical basement to its previous condition. The court rejected the complainant’s arguments that leaving the foundation and supports in the attic indicates incomplete execution of the decision, as the court decision did not contain requirements for their dismantling.
Case No. 534/1153/19 dated 21/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the presence of a receipt from the borrower is valid evidence of loan agreement execution and funds receipt. The court noted that the receipt confirms both the contract conclusion and the money receipt. The respondent did not provide evidence of loan repayment or receipt non-signing. The court also rejected arguments about the impossibility of concluding a loan agreement between a resident and a non-resident, as this is not prohibited by law.
Case No. 420/35487/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute
