Case No. 463/1771/22 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging a court verdict of life imprisonment for murder with extreme cruelty. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding violation of the right to a jury trial, as at the time of case consideration, the norm of collegial review by three judges was in effect. The court also recognized as correct the previous instances’ conclusions about the defendant’s sanity and the presence of extreme cruelty in his actions, confirmed by inflicting 22 penetrating wounds and numerous other injuries. The court deemed the punishment of life imprisonment fair, given the absence of genuine remorse and the defendant’s special danger to society. The Supreme Court upheld the life imprisonment verdict and rejected the defense’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 522/2524/22 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff was illegally held under investigation and trial for 67 months and 17 days, which entitles him to compensation for moral damages of at least one minimum wage for each month of investigation. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s right to reimbursement of actually incurred expenses for legal assistance in criminal proceedings, which were documentarily confirmed.
Case No. 759/7380/21 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s challenge to the appellate court’s decision, which left unchanged the first instance court’s verdict on conditional release for a person convicted of robbery. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the crime’s severity and specific case circumstances – application of violence against the victim, presence of two qualifying features (committed by a group and with premises intrusion). The appellate court also incorrectly applied the same circumstances both for imposing minimum punishment and for conditional release, which is inadmissible. Moreover, the possibility of the convict’s rehabilitation without actual serving the sentence was not properly substantiated. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 340/1173/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court noted that for lawful retention of overpaid pension amounts, it is necessary to establish the presence of conscious, active, and intentional actions by the pensioner. At the same time, the courts did not assess the practical possibility of notifying the pension authority about employment during a special period while on military service, nor did they verify the plaintiff’s awareness of his obligations upon pension assignment.
Case No. 643/4600/17 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the convict sincerely repented, voluntarily compensated the victim, has two minor children under his care, is positively characterized, employed, and has not violated the law for 7 years after committing the crime. The court also took into account active assistance in crime detection and the absence of claims from the victim.
Case No. 440/15230/23 dated 04/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the military unit missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court’s decision. The court established that a copy of the decision was delivered to the military unit’s electronic cabinet on 08.02.2024, and the appeal was filed only on 16.04.2024. The military unit’s references to martial law and heavy workload were not recognized as valid reasons for renewal.Case No. 203/2507/15-k dated 27/11/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the prosecution did not provide indisputable evidence of the defendants’ guilt – none of the victims saw them at the scene, there was no proof of prior conspiracy between the defendants and other persons, and the intent to commit the incriminated actions was not confirmed. The court also noted that verdicts against other persons adopted on the basis of plea agreements cannot have prejudicial significance in this case.
Case No. 442/7125/15-k dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Appealing the appellate court’s decision on conditional release of two persons convicted of extortion and property damage by explosion. The cassation instance court concluded that the appellate court did not provide proper justification for releasing the convicted persons, did not consider the audacity and public danger of the committed crimes, and did not substantiate the decision on partial satisfaction of the civil claim for moral damages. The appellate court also did not fulfill the previous instructions of the cassation court regarding the need for a detailed verification of these circumstances. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 544/6/18 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Appealing the court verdict convicting a person for traffic rules violation resulting in the death of one victim and moderate bodily injuries to another victim. Main arguments of the court: 1) The defendant’s guilt in the traffic accident is confirmed by expert conclusions, witness testimonies, and other evidence. 2) The appellate instance court reasonably canceled the conditional release, considering the severity of the crime’s consequences. 3) Increasing the moral damages to 150,000 UAH for each victim is fair given their suffering from losing a close person. Court decision: The Supreme Court rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, sentencing the convicted person to 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 757/7027/19-k dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute: Accusation of the head of the Children and Family Services of Kyiv Regional State Administration for abuse of official position in implementing an EU grant agreement for assistance to internally displaced persons. Main arguments of the court: 1) It was not proven that the defendant unilaterally chose the object for reconstruction – this decision was made collectively in working groups. 2) Grant agreement conditions did not require objects to be exclusively state or communal property. 3) Project goals were achieved – a children’s camp for IDPs successfully operated in the building, confirmed by EU reports and audits. 4) Intent to abuse and obtain unlawful benefit was not proven, as all actions corresponded to the project’s purpose. Court decision: The defendant was found not guilty and acquitted due to the absence of criminal offense elements.
Case No. 727/5640/18 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Appealing the closure of criminal proceedings against a deceased defendant in a case of apartment property theft. The court was guided by: 1) the defendant’s guilt in theft was proven by the victim’s testimony, who recognized the stolen ring, and other appropriate evidence; 2) although there were violations in obtaining some evidence (ear sample collection), other evidence of guilt was obtained legally; 3) the defendant’s death is an unconditional ground for clos[ing the case]Case No. 543/548/21 dated 28/11/2024
The Court of Cassation Instance established that the Court of Appeal committed significant procedural law violations: did not provide proper assessment of all defense arguments, did not consider part of the stated motions, did not properly document the refusal to grant a motion for expert examination, and violated the terms for preparing the full text of the court decision (almost a year instead of 5 days). These violations prevented the adoption of a lawful and substantiated decision.
Case No. 203/2507/15-k dated 27/11/2024
The subject of dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against an acquittal verdict for two persons accused of obstructing journalists’ legitimate professional activities, organizing mass riots, and illegally preventing the organization of rallies. The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the court agreed with the conclusions of lower courts regarding the unproven guilt of the accused in the crimes imputed to them. The Supreme Court left the acquittal verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 420/21964/23 dated 04/12/2024
The Court of Cassation Instance noted that making corrections to the State Register of Rights is a registration action that should be performed by a state registrar, not the executive body of the village council. Previous instance courts did not clarify the plaintiff’s compliance with the procedure for addressing the registration action and did not assess the legitimacy of the grounds for refusing to correct the error. The dispute concerns public interest, as its resolution may be important for ensuring housing rights for an indefinite number of persons.
Case No. 401/3479/21 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of dispute is appealing a court verdict regarding the punishment for traffic rules violation that caused the victim’s death and moderate bodily harm to another victim. The court took into account that the convicted person was previously not held responsible, sincerely repented, partially compensated for damages, has positive characteristics, committed the crime by negligence, was not in a state of alcohol intoxication, and suffered injuries during the accident. The court also considered the absence of aggravating circumstances and voluntary compensation of moral damages to the victim in the amount of 160,000 UAH. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal and mitigated the punishment from 5 to 3 years of imprisonment, leaving other provisions of previous court decisions in force.
Case No. 639/4455/23 dated 28/11/2024
The Court of Cassation Instance established that the Court of Appeal approached the case formally – did not provide proper assessment of evidence and defense arguments, did not properly analyze the victim’s testimony regarding the method of phone seizure, and did not provide convincing grounds for rejecting defense arguments. Such violations are significant as they prevented the adoption of a lawful and substantiated decision.
Case No. 380/13261/23 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of dispute is appealing a tax notification-decision issued by the tax service to the company “Onur”. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court.The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which were in favor of the plaintiff, which allows us to conclude that the courts found the tax authority’s position on additional tax liabilities for the company “Onur” to be unfounded. The Supreme Court rejected the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the first and appellate courts, which were in favor of the company “Onur”.
Case No. 1540/4632/18 dated 04/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the city council adhered to all procedural requirements when adopting the contested decision, including publication of the draft and holding public hearings; 2) the council did not equate parking areas with specially designated parking lots, but regulated organizational issues of parking at both types of facilities; 3) the plaintiff did not prove a violation of his rights, as he had a vehicle storage agreement.
Case No. 333/2844/17 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: accusation of a military commissar’s deputy in receiving an illegal benefit for influencing the decision on quick passage of a military medical commission. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) the fact of transferring specifically an illegal benefit, rather than repaying a debt, was not proven; 2) testimony of prosecution witnesses contained significant contradictions and were refuted by other evidence; 3) the prosecution did not prove how the accused could influence the decision of commission members; 4) there were significant violations in conducting covert investigative actions. The court acquitted the accused due to the lack of proof of a criminal offense.
Case No. 120/8398/24 dated 04/12/2024
The court noted that to correctly determine the jurisdiction of the dispute (administrative or civil), it is necessary to establish a number of important circumstances: whether the widow applied to the pension authority within 6 months after her husband’s death, whether there are other family members of the pensioner, whether the disputed pension amount is included in the inheritance certificate. Without establishing these facts, it is impossible to determine whether the unpaid pension is part of the inheritance.
Case No. 380/24300/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that after the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision of 20.12.2016 No. 7-rp/2016, limiting the maximum pension for military personnel is unconstitutional, as it violates social protection guarantees for this category of persons. In cases of ambiguous interpretation of a person’s rights in legislation, state authorities are obliged to apply an approach that would be most favorable to the individual.
Case No. 805/1516/16-а dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that public legal succession is based on constitutional principles of continuity of the state management process and state responsibility. Previous instance courts did not properly investigate the procedure for transferring competence from one administrative body to another, did not establish the legal successor and the scope of its powers, and did not clarify which act was issued on the transfer of competence. The court also took into account the ECHR practice, according to which the liquidation of a state institution without legal succession cannot exempt the state from the need to execute a decision.
Case No. 161/5868/18 dated 21/11/2024
The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the lack of evidence of prior conspiracy for robbery and knife use, as this is refuted by the victim’s testimony and case materials. At the same time, the court took into account changes in legislation.Regarding the threshold of criminal liability for theft and excluded from the indictment episodes where the value of the stolen property was lower than the established limit.
Case No. 1540/4632/18 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of Odesa City Council Decision No. 1251-VI dated 20.09.2011 on approving the Regulations on the Organization and Procedure for Parking Vehicles in Odesa. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the city council followed all procedural requirements for adopting a regulatory act – publication of the draft, public hearings, consideration of comments; 2) the council had the authority to regulate organizational issues of parking both in parking lots and in specially designated parking areas; 3) the challenged decision does not violate the plaintiff’s right to store a vehicle, as these relations are regulated by a separate storage agreement. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances refusing to satisfy the claim to cancel the city council’s decision.
Case No. 320/20884/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging customs decisions on adjusting the customs value of imported used clothing and refusal to clear goods. The cassation court established that the customs authority had reasonable doubts about the correctness of determining the customs value due to: discrepancies in payment terms between contracts and invoices, mismatch of the goods sender with the contract party, lack of documents on relations with third-party senders, invoicing after the date of transport waybills. The courts of first and appellate instances did not properly investigate these circumstances and did not provide them with appropriate legal assessment. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decision to satisfy the importer’s claim and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 363/1983/24 dated 04/12/2024
The appellate court returned the complaint, considering that the lawyer’s warrant must specify a specific court name, not a general formulation about representation ‘in courts’. The Supreme Court disagreed with such a formal approach, indicating that a general designation of bodies (‘judicial bodies’, ‘state authorities’, etc.) is sufficient, and the requirement to specify a specific court creates unjustified obstacles to court access. The appellate court also erroneously applied provisions that had already lost their validity.
Case No. 140/31522/23 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the actions of the Pension Fund regarding limiting the pension indexation amount to 1500 hryvnias when recalculating from March 1, 2023. The court was guided by the fact that under martial law, the Cabinet of Ministers has the right to establish limitations on pension indexation to balance needs and protect the largest possible number of citizens, especially those with low pensions. Such limitation does not violate pensioners’ rights, as it is aimed at ensuring social justice and economic stability in conditions where the state must primarily direct resources to defense. Moreover, setting an upper limit for indexation is not equivalent to regulating the maximum pension amount. Court decision: claim denied, as the Pension Fund’s actions to limit pension indexation to 1500 hryvnias comply with current legislation.
Case No. 440/18611/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court refused to restore the time limit for appellate appeal to the military unit because: 1) the mere fact of martial law without proving specific obstacles is not a valid reason for missing the deadline; 2) in
