Case No. 455/338/20 dated 27/11/2024
The cassation court found that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of important defense arguments, particularly regarding the absence of road signs ‘Populated Area’, ‘Pedestrian Crossing’, and ‘Unregulated Intersection’ at the scene of the traffic accident. The issues of pedestrian crossing visibility, the cyclist’s distance from the road edge, and the causal relationship between the actions of both traffic accident participants were not analyzed.
Case No. 645/2847/23 dated 02/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of theft (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), who had previously been convicted twice. The cassation court, having reviewed the case materials, concluded that a new appellate review was necessary. The court took into account the defendant’s previous convictions and the severity of the alleged crime, which became the basis for choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days. As a result of the review, the Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new case review.
Case No. 760/20083/23 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the appellate court’s verdict, which sentenced the convicted person to 5 years of imprisonment for theft during martial law. The court was guided by the following: 1) the crime was committed during martial law, which was in effect throughout Ukraine, therefore the qualification under Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code is correct; 2) the convicted person had previously been convicted multiple times for property crimes, is characterized moderately and is unemployed; 3) aggravating circumstances are present (recidivism), and the stolen property was not returned voluntarily but was seized by police during a search. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict and denied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 747/824/13-k dated 12/11/2024
The cassation court found that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of all evidence in the case. Although the appellate court correctly recognized evidence obtained in violation of covert investigative actions as inadmissible, it did not properly analyze other evidence – witness testimony, protocols of inspection and crime control. The conclusion about the inadmissibility of the crime scene inspection protocol due to possible cruel treatment of the accused was not properly substantiated.
Case No. 185/5420/22 dated 02/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, convicted under Part 4, Article 404 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The court did not provide arguments in the operative part of the ruling, as the full text of the decision will be prepared later. However, the court considered it possible to immediately announce the operative part due to the significant time required to compile the full text of the ruling. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instance courts’ decisions and denied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 454/3058/22 dated 28/11/2024
The appellate court modified the first instance verdict, replacing restriction of liberty with a fine of 68,000 UAH. The court took into account the defendant’s positive characteristics, young age, lack of previous convictions, volunteer activities, and sincere remorse. The prosecutorHere is the translation:
He appealed this decision as too lenient, but the Supreme Court found no grounds for its modification.
Case No. 199/9774/22 dated 21/11/2024
The court found the person’s guilt proven based on witness testimony, protocols of examining the defendant’s phone, expert examinations, and covert investigative actions, which confirmed the fact that the defendant transferred information about the location of military facilities, railway infrastructure, and military equipment movement to an FSB RF representative via Telegram messenger. The court also took into account that the crime was committed during martial law, which is an aggravating circumstance.
Case No. 629/6034/23 dated 28/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the sanctions of the articles under which the person was convicted (Part 5 of Article 27, Part 1 of Article 358, and Part 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code) do not provide for additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles; 2) the nature of the criminal offenses is not related to traffic safety violations; 3) the imposed punishment in the form of restriction of liberty corresponds to the severity of the committed offenses and the person of the convicted.
Case No. 185/5253/14-k dated 03/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for fraud and abuse of official position. Main Arguments of the Court: The judge established that the cassation complaints were filed by the appropriate persons and within the statutory time limit. The convicted PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 point to significant violations of criminal procedural law and incorrect application of criminal law by lower courts. Both convicted persons were released from serving the sentence due to the expiration of limitation periods but are challenging the conviction itself. Court Decision: The court ordered the retrieval of criminal case materials from the Pavlohrad City District Court for verification in cassation order.
Case No. 953/7262/22 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person filed a repeated appeal on November 15, 2023, that is, after the expiration of the 30-day period for appealing the verdict from September 5, 2023. At the same time, the convicted person did not file a motion to restore the missed period. Importantly, later the convicted person’s defense attorney still managed to restore the appeal period, and the appellate court considered the case on its merits.
Case No. 2-412/07 dated 03/12/2024
The court refused to restore the appeal period because the applicant became aware of the existence of the contested decision back in July 2021 but filed an appeal only in April 2023, without providing valid reasons for such a long missed period. The court also took into account that the mere fact of a person’s non-participation in the case cannot be an unconditional basis for restoring the appeal period after the expiration of 16 years from the moment of the decision, as this violates the principle of legal certainty.
Case No. 496/3889/19 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the state executor unjustifiably canceled the debtor’s restriction on driving vehicles, since at the time of cancellation there was a significant alimony debt (712,678 hryvnias). The debtor’s employment as a driver is not a sufficient basis for lifting the restriction, since he does not…There are no obstacles to working in another specialty. The restriction on driving vehicles is a proportionate measure to ensure the enforcement of a court decision on alimony collection.
Case No. 500/3027/24 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the actions and inaction of tax authorities by the Limited Liability Company “Myshkovytskyi Spyrtovyi Zavod”. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the decision have been provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court. However, considering that courts of three instances (first, appellate, and cassation) made the same decision, it can be concluded that the plaintiff’s position was properly substantiated and confirmed by evidence. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the tax authority’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances, which were made in favor of the distillery.
Case No. 691/517/23 dated 29/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – establishing the fact of the daughter’s permanent residence with the testator (mother) at the time of inheritance opening to process inheritance rights. The court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff provided proper evidence (witness testimonies) of living together with her mother at the time of her death; 2) although the plaintiff was registered at another address, that house was uninhabitable (lacking communications); 3) after her mother’s death, the plaintiff actually accepted the inheritance – lived in the house, made repairs, paid utility services. The court satisfied the claim to establish the fact of permanent residence with the testator and rejected the village council’s counterclaim to declare the inheritance as abandoned.
Case No. 577/3233/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the borrower took a loan of 237,600 US dollars, which he used not in the family’s interests, but for the needs of the LLC by making financial assistance and providing loans to other persons. The borrower’s wife did not consent to obtaining the loan, therefore, joint spousal liability is absent. Regarding challenging the donation agreement of a share in the authorized capital – the court could not properly investigate this issue due to the defendants’ failure to provide the original agreement.
Case No. 910/2990/24 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – collection from JSC ‘NAEK ‘Energoatom’ in favor of Corporation ‘TCM Group’ of debt amounting to 4.7 million UAH. The court of first instance satisfied the claims, the appellate court left this decision unchanged. The Supreme Court, having considered Energoatom’s cassation appeal, found no grounds for its satisfaction and agreed with the conclusions of the lower instance courts. Additionally, the court collected 10,000 UAH from the defendant for legal assistance expenses in the cassation instance. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the judicial decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 354/678/15-ц dated 20/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: invalidation of the state act for the right of private ownership of a land plot and recovery of a land plot from illegal possession. The court was guided by the following: 1) the claim to invalidate the state act is an improper method of rights protection, as it will not restore the state’s right to property – the appropriate method is a vindication claim; 2) the claim to recover the land plot should be considered in the economic court, as the plaintiff and defendant are legal entities; 3) the circumstances of illegal acquisition of ownership rights to the land plot are confirmed by the court’s ruling in the criminal case.Court Decision Summaries:
1. Case No. П/990/64/24 dated 04/12/2024
The court rejected the claim to invalidate the state act and closed proceedings regarding land plot recovery due to non-jurisdiction of the civil court. The subject of the dispute was challenging the Presidential Decree on applying personal sanctions against a German citizen. The court rejected the claim in full, maintaining sanctions applied to the German citizen under Presidential Decree No. 813/2023 dated 7 December 2023.
2. Case No. 485/1500/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court determined that since the state is not the actual possessor of the disputed land plot (ownership rights are registered to a private person), the appropriate method of protecting state rights is recovering property from illegal possession (vindication claim), not removing obstacles to use (negatory claim). The court noted that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protecting the violated right, as a negatory claim is used to protect the rights of an owner who is the actual possessor of the property.
3. Case No. 926/114/24 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute was compelling JSC ‘Chernivtsioblenergo’ to perform certain actions at the request of LLC ‘Ukrenerhomashinzhynirynh’. The first instance court satisfied the claim, the appellate court supported this decision. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation complaint, found no grounds for its satisfaction and agreed with the conclusions of lower instance courts.
4. Case No. 333/2766/21 dated 20/11/2024
The cassation instance court noted that the appellate court incorrectly rejected the claim due to an allegedly improper defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of damages caused by state authorities, the state itself is the proper defendant as a participant in civil relations, not a specific state body.
5. Case No. 990/92/24 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute was challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding an interview with a judicial candidate. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the HQCJ decision was unlawful and the candidate should be given an opportunity for a repeated interview for vacant local court positions. The court fully satisfied the claim, canceled the HQCJ decision, and obliged the commission to conduct a repeated interview with the plaintiff.In land management, which is a mandatory component of the privatization procedure. A series of consecutive actions were identified regarding the illegal acquisition of a land plot into private ownership, simultaneously taking actions to prevent its return (consolidation, division of land plots, change of configuration). The court also took into account that the consolidation of the disputed plot with other plots does not prevent its recovery, as no new property was created.
Case No. 753/2030/21 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the assignment of a claim under a credit agreement in favor of an individual contradicts the legislation, since a creditor can only be a bank or another financial institution. At the same time, claims to cancel the registration of ownership and declare the sale and purchase agreement invalid are not an effective means of protection, as the proper method of protection is the recovery of property from the last owner who is not involved in the case.
Case No. 904/217/24 dated 02/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that to recover court costs in such a case, it is necessary to prove the groundlessness of the plaintiff’s actions. The mere fact of appealing to court in the presence of an arbitration clause cannot be considered an unreasonable action, as it is a constitutional right of a person. The defendant did not prove that the plaintiff acted in bad faith or intended to infringe on the defendant’s rights.
Case No. 758/7636/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that for the legal suspension of an employment contract, the absolute impossibility of the employer providing work and the employee performing it must be proven. KP “Kyivpastranse” continued its activities and did not prove the impossibility of providing the plaintiff with work. Selective suspension of employment contracts with individual employees was not properly substantiated. Merely worsening the financial condition of the enterprise is not a sufficient basis for suspending employment contracts under Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Organization of Labor Relations in Martial Law Conditions”.
Case No. 916/360/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed lease agreement dated 13.12.2019 was concluded in violation of the established legal procedure for transferring municipal property for lease – in the absence of a corresponding decision by the authorized body and exceeding the lease term (49 years instead of the permitted 2 years 11 months). The court also took into account that the acceptance-transfer act for this agreement was not signed by the parties.
Case No. 298/66/21 dated 23/10/2024
In considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that although joint possession and use of property is impossible, terminating the defendant’s ownership of his share would cause significant harm to his interests and the interests of his family members, as they live in the disputed house, and the defendant’s shares in other housing do not guarantee providing housing for his family. The court also took into account that the defendant’s share (1/2) is significant, unlike cases referenced by the appellate court where rights to insignificant shares (1/214 and 1/5, 1/20) were terminated.
Case No. 613/1404/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court took into account that after determining the preliminary amount of alimony, the father’s family and financial situation changed, as alimony is being collected for the maintenance of another child from another marriage. A change in family status is
