Here is the translation of the legal texts:
Case No. 991/2380/24 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging a separate ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court by a representative of PJSC AB “UKRGASBANK”. Unfortunately, due to the absence of the full text of the decision and the reasoning part, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the court in making the ruling. In this case, we only have the introductory and operative parts of the resolution.
The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the appeal without satisfaction and the separate ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court unchanged.
Case No. 917/1297/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court established that gas supply was carried out outside the contractual relations, as LLC “Gas Supply Company ‘Naftogaz of Ukraine'” had already exhausted the 60-day supply term as a “last resort” supplier, and the consumer had overdue debt. However, since the fact of gas receipt is not disputed, and its return in kind is impossible, the norms on unjust enrichment (condiction) should be applied to the disputed legal relations.
Case No. 910/940/20 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on suspending proceedings in a case of recovering 27.7 million UAH in damages from bank managers. The court was guided by the fact that according to procedural legislation, suspension of proceedings due to the consideration of another case is allowed only before the start of the case consideration on the merits in the appellate instance. Since the appellate court had already begun considering the case (conducted court sessions, resolved procedural issues), there were no grounds for suspending the proceedings. The court also noted that the liability of bank managers for damages does not depend on their criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on suspending proceedings and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 920/882/23(920/234/19) dated 28/11/2024
The court established that the state executor did not perform all necessary actions to search for the debtor’s property, did not seize the identified accounts, and did not take into account the fact of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, which required suspending the executive proceedings, not returning the executive document. Although the death of the debtor’s manager made it impossible to apply restrictive measures to him, this did not exempt the executor from the obligation to take other legally prescribed enforcement measures.
Case No. 911/2732/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the land plot was leased in violation of the law – without conducting land auctions, although they were mandatory in this case. The company received a plot for the construction of a multi-apartment building, although it had the right to receive it without auctions only for servicing existing buildings. The lease agreement was declared void as it was aimed at illegal seizure of communal land.
Case No. 917/602/21 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: recovery from PJSC “Kremenchuk Shoe Production and Trading”Case No. 924/866/21 dated 28/11/2024
Recovery of 1.1 million UAH in favor of JSC “Poltavaoblenergo” for unaccounted electrical energy due to meter damage. Main court arguments: Trasological expertise is a subspecies of forensic expertise and can be conducted exclusively by state specialized institutions. Conclusions of LLC “Independent Institute of Forensic Expertise” are inadmissible evidence, as this organization is not a state expert institution. Without proper expert confirmation of meter interference, the supplier has no grounds for additional charging of unaccounted electrical energy.
Court decision: Canceled the appellate court resolution and upheld the first instance court decision, which denied recovery of 1.1 million UAH from PJSC “Kremenchuk Shoe Production and Trade Association”.
Case No. 910/8188/21 dated 29/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the stage of opening enforcement proceedings, the state executor cannot determine whether the court decision has been executed – they should only verify the compliance of the executive document with formal legal requirements. Verification of actual execution is carried out after opening the proceedings. Therefore, the state executor’s actions in opening the proceedings were lawful, even if the debtor claimed voluntary execution of the decision.
Case No. 910/14022/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: declaring unlawful and canceling the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine order refusing to satisfy the complaint about registration actions regarding cancellation of registration restrictions for LLC “Premiori”.
The court was guided by: 1) the company participant (Premiori LTD) had no right to file an application for canceling registration restrictions on behalf of the company, as they were not an authorized representative; 2) registration actions were performed contrary to law based on a court decision whose execution was suspended; 3) the private notary did not properly verify information about appealing the court decision.
The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions to declare the order unlawful and cancel the Ministry of Justice order.
Case No. 918/226/24 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided that the attorney’s fee is determined only by agreement between the lawyer and client, and the court has no right to interfere in these legal relations. The burden of proving disproportionality of expenses is placed on the party claiming their reduction. The appellate court unjustifiably reduced the compensation amount to 5,000 UAH without providing proper justification and evidence of expenses’ non-compliance with proportionality criteria.Subject of the Dispute: Recovery of Debt under a Contractor Agreement in the Amount of 374,585.32 UAH. The Court was Guided by the Following: 1) a contractor agreement with an arbitration clause was concluded between the parties; 2) the Arbitration Court adhered to the procedure for forming the court composition by sending the parties a proposal to choose judges; 3) the respondent actively participated in the Arbitration Court sessions and did not raise objections about violations in the court composition formation procedure.
The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s decision and issued an order for forced execution of the Arbitration Court’s decision on debt recovery from the respondent.
Case No. 924/866/21 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the Dispute – Debt Recovery between Gas Transmission and Gas Distribution System Operators. 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 the court’s legal positions and justifications are usually outlined.
The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/844/24 dated 28/11/2024
The Appellate Court closed the proceedings, considering that the dispute should be considered under civil, not economic judicial proceedings, since the respondent acts as a physical person-owner of a non-residential premises. However, the Supreme Court found such a conclusion premature, as the appellate court did not properly examine evidence regarding the respondent’s status in the disputed legal relations and the purpose of using the non-residential premises.
Case No. 905/20/23 dated 15/11/2024
The Subject of the Dispute is Invalidation of Agreements for Agricultural Work Performance and Delivery of Future Harvest Grain as Simulated Transactions Concealing a Land Lease Agreement. When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that the permanent land user (State Enterprise “Seed Certification and Expertise Center”) does not have the right to transfer the land plot to third parties for use, as it only has possession and use powers, but not disposal. The court also noted that the disputed agreements, taken together, can be considered a hidden land lease agreement, as they actually provide for transferring a land plot to LLC “Agroprod-Donbas” with the right to grow and harvest.
The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of lower instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for proper investigation of the actual circumstances of the case and the nature of the disputed legal relations.
Case No. 922/221/24 dated 27/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that anti-radiation shelters, according to legislation, were not subject to privatization and could not be transferred to private ownership. Since the state’s ownership right to such property could not be transferred to a private person, the appropriate method of protection is a negatory claim to remove obstacles to use. At the same time, the court rejected claims for recognizing the state’s ownership right and cancelling the respondent’s ownership registration as inappropriate protection methods.Case No. 922/479/24 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that when concluding the lease agreement, legal requirements were violated, as the mandatory valuation of the leased object was not conducted. However, the court also determined that the prosecutor missed the statute of limitations (3 years) by filing a claim 8 years after the contract was signed. In this case, the prosecutor did not prove valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations, and the start of the statute of limitations for the state began from the moment of signing the lease agreement, when the local self-government body was aware of the lack of property valuation.
Case No. 466/11944/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the land plot was alienated from the territorial community’s possession without its consent due to illegal actions of previous owners. In this case, LLC “Crystal-Media” cannot be considered a bona fide acquirer, as at the time of plot acquisition, it had the opportunity to learn from public registers about the existence of court disputes regarding it and the absence of legal documents from previous owners.
Case No. 910/16242/23 dated 20/11/2024
The court established that the contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause for dispute resolution at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. Since one of the parties is a foreign company, and the respondent timely requested arbitration of the dispute, the court concluded that the dispute is not subject to consideration in Ukrainian courts. Previous court instances erroneously recognized the arbitration clause as unclear and unenforceable.
Case No. 911/3331/23 dated 20/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the claim to recognize actions as unlawful is essentially a claim to establish a legal fact, which cannot be an independent subject of dispute; 2) the lessee did not take actions to terminate the lease agreement, therefore the airport had legitimate expectations regarding service payment; 3) work completion certificates are considered accepted by the lessee without remarks according to the contract terms.
Case No. 910/14892/22 dated 28/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the amount of expenses must be proportionate to the case complexity and volume of services provided; 2) the lawyer’s legal position was consistent, and he was familiar with the case circumstances; 3) significant legal assistance expenses would lead to a reduction of funds for satisfying other creditors’ claims, as these expenses relate to the first priority.
Case No. 910/19875/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court recognized the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision as lawful, as the fact of coordinated actions between bidders was proven through: using identical IP addresses, common tender proposal features, presence of telephone conversations between participants, joint economic activities, and employment characteristics. The court emphasized that such evidence should be evaluated comprehensively, not individually.
Case No. 904/217/24 dated 27/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is recovery of debt
