Case No. 459/3471/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal regarding a person accused under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of mobilization). Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s complaint, considering the appellate court’s decision to require review.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court revoked the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 522/10157/20 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the pre-trial investigation of the tragedy has been ongoing for more than 6 years and is still not completed, despite the high-profile nature of the case. The ineffectiveness of the investigation was manifested in the failure to conduct proper investigative actions to establish the causes of the fire, lack of interaction between investigators, inaction regarding holding responsible persons accountable, and non-performance of other important procedural actions. The prolonged uncertainty caused significant moral suffering to the plaintiffs.
Case No. 165/1288/20 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the guardian does not have legal authority to initiate a change of surname for the ward child, as the right to change the name belongs only to the individuals themselves, their parents (for minors), and adoptive parents. The guardian’s functions are limited to care, upbringing, and protection of the ward’s property rights but do not include the ability to change their personal non-property rights, including the right to a name.
Case No. 2а-14844/12/2670 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – review under exceptional circumstances of court decisions in a case concerning restriction of the right to peaceful assembly for credit unions. Since the provided text contains only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments used by the court in making the decision. A full analysis of the court’s motives requires the motivational part of the judicial decision.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the application for review under exceptional circumstances of previous court decisions in this case.
Case No. 400/5284/22 dated 05/12/2024
The appellate court established that the military unit missed the one-month period for court appeal, which began from the date of the defendant’s exclusion from the personnel list (19.05.2021), and the lawsuit was filed only in July 2022. The court critically assessed the plaintiff’s argument about providing the defendant with an 18-month period for voluntary compensation, as the letter with such a proposal was not properly communicated to the defendant. The court also noted that the reasons for missing the deadline cannot be considered valid, as this was a result of the plaintiff’s own unreasonable delay.
Case No. 910/1577/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “Stroy Capital Invest Farming” of debt amounting to 36.2 million UAH. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the judicial decision, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s ruling is provided without the motivational part.
The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” and left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which satisfied the lawsuit.
Case No. 916/111/24 dated 28/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that during martial law, the NCREP Resolution No. 332 is in effect, which prohibits the accrual of penalty sanctions for…Contracts between electricity market participants. The court established that the disputed contract was concluded in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Electricity Market”, and therefore the resolution applies to it. The court also noted that three conditions are sufficient for applying Resolution No. 332: the contract must be concluded by electricity market participants, in accordance with the profile law, and penalties must be calculated during the period of martial law.
Case No. 916/5139/23 dated 03/12/2024
The appellate court refused to reimburse legal assistance expenses due to the absence of the main legal assistance agreement in the case materials, although additional agreements were present. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court should have evaluated all available evidence comprehensively, including additional agreements, and verified the reasonableness and validity of the claimed expenses, rather than refusing solely due to the absence of the main contract.
Case No. 308/1220/22 dated 26/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court’s decision to convert bail to state revenue due to the defendant’s violation of preventive measure conditions. The court was guided by the fact that the defendant repeatedly failed to appear in court hearings without valid reasons, thus violating the bail conditions. The court noted that the bail period as a preventive measure is not limited to two months (unlike additional obligations) and remains in effect until the final decision in the case. The court also rejected the argument about the need for a separate written explanation of bail violation consequences, as the bail provider was a professional lawyer. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions on converting bail to state revenue.
Case No. 138/78/22 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against court decisions in criminal proceedings regarding a defendant charged with fraud (Part 2 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s resolution, the court’s arguments for the decision are not provided. The full text of the resolution with the reasoning part is to be announced later. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the first and appellate instances, and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 461/328/24 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft). The court decided to close the criminal proceedings because the law establishing criminal liability for this act had lost its force. This is an important basis for closing criminal proceedings, as according to the principle of retroactive effect of law, if a law that cancels or mitigates a person’s responsibility comes into force after the offense, it has retroactive effect. The court also took into account that the person was in custody and therefore ordered immediate release. Following the review, the Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, canceled the previous instances’ decisions, and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 532/96/21 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging an acquittal regarding an investigator accused of illegal detention and entering false information into the detention protocol. The cassation instance court found that the appellate court formally considered the case – did not properly examine evidence, did not evaluate the prosecutor’s and victim’s arguments, and unreasonably refused to interrogate witnesses. The appellate court also did not verify the prosecution’s arguments that the investigator conducted detention…Detention 4 days after the event, when there were no legal grounds, and entered false information into the detention protocol. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 357/14131/19 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the court verdict regarding a woman who killed her newborn child after childbirth (Article 117 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). When making the decision, the court was guided by the following key arguments: 1) it is proven that the accused gave birth to a living child, confirmed by a forensic medical examination; 2) intent to murder was established, as the woman concealed her pregnancy, did not register with a women’s consultation, and did not prepare for the child’s birth; 3) the cause of the child’s death was falling from the 7th floor height, confirmed by an investigative experiment and expert examinations; 4) all evidence in the case is admissible and relevant. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced the accused to 3 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 640/12669/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that compound interest is part of the debtor’s monetary obligation that arose before the bankruptcy proceedings were opened. Therefore, claims for their recovery cannot be considered current, and they are subject to the moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims. The creditor’s artificial separation of compound interest from the total debt amount does not convert them into current claims, as they were provided for in the enforcement order and are not new obligations.
Case No. 560/7209/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court found that the State Migration Service authorities and previous instance courts incorrectly applied Temporary Procedure No. 456, which regulates passport issuance only with a court decision. Instead, they should have applied the Passport Regulation, which requires only a statement, birth certificate, and two photographs. The courts did not properly investigate whether the applicant had met these requirements.
Case No. 461/10676/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – motion by the accused and her defender to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings regarding state treason, incitement of national hostility, and war propaganda. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. However, from the available text, it is evident that the hearing was conducted in an open court session with the participation of all necessary process participants, including the prosecutor, defender, and the accused herself. The Supreme Court denied the motion to transfer criminal proceedings materials from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Case No. 914/2823/15 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the ECHR in the decision “PERSON_1 and others v. Ukraine” established a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court due to the excessive court fee. Appellate and cassation instance courts formally considered the plaintiffs’ motions for exemption from court fees, without providing a proper assessment of their property status and evidence of inability to pay a fee equivalent to their 5-month aggregate income. This approach violated the very essence of the right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
Case No. 990/68/24 dated 05/12/2024
The court found that the High Council of Justice improperly refused to resume consideration of the resignation application, because: 1) failure to pass qualification evaluation inWithin the framework of disciplinary sanctions, dismissal from office cannot be an obstacle, as such an assessment is only meaningful for judges who wish to continue working; 2) the High Council of Justice allowed discrimination, as it permitted other judges in a similar situation to resign; 3) after the closure of the disciplinary proceedings, the grounds for suspending the consideration of the resignation application have fallen away.
Case No. 910/16972/21 (910/6828/23) dated 26/11/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of immovable property from illegal possession and invalidation of state property registration decisions. The court was guided by the fact that the bank violated the procedure for foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage, as it did not assess the property at the time of acquiring ownership, as required by law. The court also established that the subsequent alienation of the property by the bank was free of charge, as no evidence of real payment under the purchase and sale agreement was provided. Under such circumstances, the owner has the right to recover the property from a good faith acquirer in all cases. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the first instance court’s decision on recovering the property in favor of the original owner.
Case No. 761/21652/18 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) PERSON_1 played the role of an accomplice in the murder by providing transportation of the perpetrator to the murder site and subsequent destruction of the vehicle; 2) their involvement is confirmed by witness testimonies, video recordings from surveillance cameras, and other evidence; 3) the defendant’s actions were coordinated with other members of the criminal group and aimed at achieving a common criminal intent.
Case No. 761/40609/21 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of an apartment donation agreement and cancellation of the state property registration decision. The court was guided by the fact that the owner can recover their property from the person who is the last acquirer of the property, regardless of how many times the property was alienated by previous acquirers. Since the owner of the disputed apartment at the time of the case consideration was a person with whom the plaintiff was not in contractual relations, the invalidation of the primary donation agreement would not have restored the plaintiff’s property rights. Therefore, the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protecting their violated rights. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling on dismissing the claim unchanged.
Case No. 380/9502/24 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the new version of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which limits the term for appealing to court to three months, cannot be applied to legal relations that arose before its entry into force (before 19.07.2022). Since the right to compensation arose before this date, the previous version of the law applies, which did not limit the term for appealing to court in cases of wage recovery.
Case No. 560/866/24 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the new version of Article 233 of the Labor Code from 19.07.2022, which limits the term for appealing to court to three months, cannot be applied to legal relations that arose before its entry into force. This corresponds to the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. For claims for wage recovery for the period before 19.07.2022, the previous version of the law applies, which did not limit the term for appealing to court.
Case No. 240/33834/23 dated 05/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court incorrectly applied the month…Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
The court applied a one-year limitation period for filing a lawsuit under the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine, while it should have applied a three-month period under the Labor Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber, which determined the priority of Labor Code provisions regarding time limits in labor disputes about wages. The court also took into account that during the quarantine period (until June 30, 2023), the time limits for filing a lawsuit were extended.
[Case No. 715/2866/22 dated 04/12/2024]
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court examined the case with a violation of the plaintiff’s procedural rights, as it did not properly notify her about the time and place of the court session. Although the court posted an announcement on the official judicial website, it did not send a notification to the known address of the plaintiff, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and defend her interests.
[Case No. 138/78/22 dated 03/12/2024]
The subject of the dispute concerns the correctness of closing the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the position of the United Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court from April 1, 2024, that the period between the closure of criminal proceedings and the cancellation of the closure order (from May 22, 2020 to November 4, 2021) should not be included in the pre-trial investigation period if no suspicion was reported during this time. Therefore, the conclusion of lower courts that this period should be considered in the pre-trial investigation term is erroneous. This means that the pre-trial investigation was conducted within the legally established terms. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
[Case No. 560/3418/24 dated 05/12/2024]
The cassation instance court established that the military unit timely filed an appellate complaint through courier-postal communication, which is confirmed by the correspondence register dated June 19, 2024. The court also noted that registration in the ‘Electronic Court’ system does not deprive the right to submit documents in paper form, therefore the conclusions of the appellate court were erroneous.
[Case No. 420/19038/23 dated 05/12/2024]
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that merely being a serviceman in a combat zone is not sufficient grounds for paying increased remuneration – documentary confirmation of direct participation in combat operations or national security and defense measures is necessary. Such documents include a combat order, combat log, combat report, etc. The court also took into account that such remuneration is paid exclusively based on the order of the military unit commander with reference to the relevant combat documents.
[Case No. 295/3597/23 dated 04/12/2024]
The court established that the employer violated the dismissal procedure by not offering the employee available vacant positions simultaneously with the dismissal notice. Although the employee herself requested to shorten the two-month dismissal notice period, this did not exempt the employer from the obligation to offer her all available vacancies. The court also noted that it is not permissible to ‘reserve’ vacant positions for other employees, as the employer did.
[Case No. 484/5649/23 dated 04/12/2024]
The subject of the dispute concerns recognizing the fact of living together as a family and property rights to real estate through inheritance. The court was guided by the fact that the deceased’s sister (PERSON_2) does not have the right to appeal, as she did not accept the inheritance within the legally established term and the court decision did not resolve…Regarding the issue of her rights. At the same time, the court recognized that the prosecutor has the right to file an appellate complaint to protect the interests of the state in connection with the inaction of the local self-government body, which did not challenge the decision regarding potentially ownerless inheritance. The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling on refusal to open proceedings on the sister’s complaint, but canceled the ruling on refusal to open proceedings on the prosecutor’s complaint and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 367/3583/17 dated 27/11/2024
The court noted that legal succession arose based on the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated June 19, 2019 No. 537, by which the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service was merged with the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service. At the same time, the fact of legal succession is not related to the state registration of the debtor’s termination, as the appellate court mistakenly believed. The court also emphasized that the replacement of the debtor in the executive document is allowed at any stage of the court proceedings.
Case No. 753/7179/19 dated 04/12/2024
The court of cassation instance noted that the claim to declare the first transaction on the sale of a garden house invalid is an appropriate method of protecting the violated rights of a co-owner. At the same time, the plaintiff is not obliged to simultaneously file a claim for the recovery of property from the last acquirer, as they can protect their rights by filing a separate lawsuit. It is important to establish the bad faith of the first buyer – whether they knew about the lack of consent from the co-owner for the sale.
Case No. 369/10284/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, recovering from the defendant an advance payment, 3% per annum, and inflation losses. The appellate court canceled this decision and transferred the case to the commercial court, as bankruptcy proceedings were opened against the defendant. The Supreme Court pointed out that this was erroneous, since the jurisdiction of the dispute is determined at the moment of opening the proceedings, and the bankruptcy case was opened after the decision was made by the court of first instance.
Case No. 509/4771/14-ц dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the bank did not comply with the mandatory pre-trial procedure for resolving the issue of early return of funds under a consumer loan – it did not send the borrower a written request 60 days in advance about the need to repay the debt. At the same time, the appellate court mistakenly did not consider the possibility of recovering overdue debt, the payment term of which has already expired, and did not determine its amount.
Case No. 369/7419/20 dated 03/12/2024
The court established that the disputed land plots were alienated from state ownership in January 2014 based on an order of the Main Directorate of the State Land Agency, which did not have the right to dispose of these lands due to their intended purpose (industrial lands). However, the prosecutor filed a lawsuit only in June 2020, that is, after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations. The court took into account that both the prosecutor and the Regional State Administration had an objective opportunity to learn about the violation of state rights from the moment of adoption of the disputed order in January 2014.
Case No. 342/1054/23 dated 05/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the owner voluntarily issued a notarized power of attorney to a representative without restrictions on price and sale conditions; 2) the bad faith of the representative and his wife in concluding the contract was not proven; 3) the car left the owner’s possession with her will, therefore, it is not subject to recovery from a bona fide acquirer.
Case No. 523/11900/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove a violation of her rights by registering the house under the defendant’s name, as she did not provide evidence that she and her husband had carried out the construction of this house. Moreover, the land plot for construction was not allocated to them in the prescribed manner. Regarding the state registrar – they cannot be a defendant in such a category of cases, as the dispute concerns a violation of civil rights between private individuals.
Case No. 642/1088/23 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: termination of a cooperation agreement for the implementation of a construction project and recovery of funds in the amount of 300,000 US dollars, a fine, and penalties. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the non-receipt of property rights by a third party (LLC “Inbiko”), which is not a party to the agreement between individuals, cannot be considered as non-receipt of what the plaintiff expected; 2) violation of the terms of the contract between legal entities is not a basis for terminating the contract between individuals; 3) the provisions on unjust enrichment cannot be applied to the disputed legal relations due to their contractual nature. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the lower courts and completely denied the claim.
Case No. 920/478/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the balance holder (hospital) properly notified the tenant about not extending the lease agreement, as the premises are necessary for their own needs. At the same time, approval of such a decision by the local self-government body was not required, as neither the law nor the hospital’s charter established such a requirement. The court also took into account that the tenant did not vacate the premises after the expiration of the contract term.
Case No. 2а-12060/12/2670 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) issuing promissory notes in payment for purchased securities is not an actual incurrence of expenses, but only the formation of debt, and therefore cannot reduce the tax base; 2) the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that they were included in the list of employees of PCSP ‘Avangard’ who are entitled to a property share, therefore, income from the sale of the share is subject to taxation; 3) the plaintiff did not live or work in the farm during the period of property sharing.
Case No. 320/36351/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the time sheet is only an internal accounting document for recording working hours, and not a legal act of individual action. Such a document does not create legal consequences in the form of arising obligations or termination of an employee’s rights, does not contain authoritative instructions, and is not an act of applying legal norms. The court also noted that this dispute is not subject to consideration in courts of any jurisdiction, as the time sheet is merely a technical accounting document.
Case No. 683/361/19 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against the verdicts of the first and appellate courts regarding three persons convicted of illegal deprivation of liberty and robbery, committed by a preliminary conspiracy of a group of persons. The court of cassation instance considered the cassation complaints of the defenders of three convicted persons, who appealed against the verdicts of the Starokostiantyniv District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court. From the available operative part of the decision, the court’s arguments are not apparent, as they will be set out in the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaints without satisfaction and the appealed verdicts unchanged.
Case No. 638/2270/23 dated 03/12/2024
The court took into account that the son cared for his sick mother from 2017 until her death in 2019, which was confirmed…The text is a collection of court case summaries. Here’s the translation:
The case is supported by medical documents about the mother’s health, a neighbor interview report, documents about the balcony repair in the mother’s apartment, and witness testimonies. There are no proofs of the son’s residence in another location during this period, and the deceased’s sister acknowledged the claim and does not claim inheritance.
Case No. 761/2492/20 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the bank legally acquired ownership of the mortgage object because: the mortgage agreement contained a provision about the bank’s possibility of acquiring ownership; the bank properly notified the debtor about the intention to foreclose; the property valuation was conducted in compliance with legislation requirements; the mortgagor’s disagreement with the valuation is not grounds for canceling ownership registration; statute of limitations does not terminate the mortgage.
Case No. 369/14957/19 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute: cancellation of state registrar’s decisions regarding mortgage encumbrance on real estate. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) To cancel mortgage registration, the plaintiff had to prove the bad faith acquisition of rights by the defendant, which was not done; 2) Public auction for the mortgage object was conducted based on a non-existent court decision; 3) Termination of state registration of real estate mortgage encumbrance does not imply termination of the mortgage itself if the mortgage agreement remains valid. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the claim and referred the case for new consideration, as the court did not establish all important case circumstances and did not provide proper evidence assessment.
Case No. 461/3494/22 dated 05/12/2024
The court rejected the claim, having established that the plaintiff has an outstanding loan debt of 48,258.98 UAH, the contract terms do not provide for its termination, and the plaintiff did not prove the existence of significant contract violations by the bank that would provide grounds for judicial termination. The court also noted that since the contract is a mixed comprehensive banking service agreement, the plaintiff’s reference to the client’s unconditional right to unilaterally terminate the bank account agreement is unfounded.
Case No. 753/5150/22 dated 04/12/2024
The court considered that the defendant’s share is insignificant and cannot be allocated in kind, joint property use is impossible due to conflict between parties. Importantly, during the case hearing, the defendant donated another apartment belonging to her to her son, which was interpreted as bad faith behavior and abuse of right. The plaintiff deposited the full value of the defendant’s share with the court.
Case No. 274/6933/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendants were found guilty of an administrative offense for illegal fish catching with nets. The court established a causal connection between their unlawful actions and the damage caused but reduced the compensation to 600,000 UAH, considering the defendants’ financial status. The appellate court refused to open proceedings due to missed appeal deadline without valid reasons.
Case No. 297/1881/23 dated 04/12/2024
The cassation instance court noted that previous courts showed excessive formalism by returning the claim due to inability to identify the defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that determining defendants is the plaintiff’s right, and establishing their relevance is the court’s obligation during case consideration, not at the stage of opening proceedings.Note: I noticed that the last entry appears to be incomplete. I will translate the available text:
Note that the respondent’s presence outside the country is not grounds for refusing to consider the case.
Case No. 552/7015/22 dated 27/11/2024
The court recognized the dismissal as lawful because: 1) JSC ‘Ukrzaliznytsia’ is a critical infrastructure facility and did not cease operations during martial law; 2) the plaintiff, as a department head, was supposed to be involved in work; 3) the mere fact of martial law is not a valid reason for being absent from work without proper documentation; 4) the plaintiff had sufficient time to get to the workplace or properly document her absence.
Case No. 910/7378/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine from SE ‘Defense Procurement Agency’ of funds amounting to almost 85 million hryvnias. The court of first instance satisfied the Ministry of Defense’s claim, and the appellate court supported this decision. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation complaint of SE ‘Defense Procurement Agency’, found no grounds for its satisfaction and no violations in the previous instances’ decisions. As a result, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which ordered SE ‘Defense Procurement Agency’ to pay 84.9 million hryvnias to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
Case No. 758/9185/22 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding conviction for attempted theft (Part 2 of Article 15, Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court decided to close the criminal proceedings because the law establishing criminal liability for this act had lost its force. This is an unconditional basis for canceling previous court decisions and closing the proceedings, as the act is no longer considered criminally punishable. This approach corresponds to the principle that a law that cancels or mitigates a person’s liability has retroactive effect. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the verdicts of lower instance courts, closed the criminal proceedings, and released the accused from custody.
Case No. 946/4013/23 dated 03/12/2024
The court established the presence of direct intent to murder, considering that the convicted person: specifically took a knife after a conflict; inflicted strikes on vital organs; did not provide assistance to the victims; had a previous conviction for murder. Important factors were also the number of strikes (12) and their localization (chest, abdomen), which indicates a desire to cause death.
Case No. 990SСGС/14/24 dated 05/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the fact of a judge driving a car with signs of alcohol intoxication and refusing an examination is confirmed by case materials and video recordings from police body cameras; 2) such behavior of a judge discredits the judge’s title and undermines the authority of justice; 3) the chosen type of disciplinary sanction in the form of a submission to dismiss the judge from the position is proportional to the committed offense.
Case No. 120/12613/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court noted that the appellate instance did not properly investigate all circumstances of the case and evidence. In particular, it was not established what specific tasks the serviceman performed during the trip, the grounds for issuing a certificate of participation in combat operations were not verified, and primary documents were not examined. The court also emphasized that formal procedural shortcomings by the military unit cannot be grounds for depriving the serviceman of the legal right to additional remuneration.
Case No. 990/68/24 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the decision of the High Council [text incomplete]Justice and Claim for Declaring Her Actions Unlawful. Since the resolution contains only the introductory and operative parts, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court relied on when making the decision. However, it can be seen that the case was considered by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as an appellate court after a preliminary review by the Cassation Administrative Court.
The court decided to leave the Highest Council of Justice’s appeal unmet and the first instance court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 908/338/24 dated 26/11/2024:
The court established that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of the existence of a monetary obligation – the fact of transferring 1 million UAH under a loan agreement was not proven, there is no evidence of concluding a surety agreement with the enterprise, and the violation of the primary obligation by the borrower was not confirmed. The court also revealed signs of artificially creating grounds for bankruptcy due to a conflict between the former director and the enterprise owner.
Case No. 820/17417/14 dated 04/12/2024:
The court established that customs had reasonable doubts about the declared customs value because: 1) previously, identical goods were imported at a higher price; 2) the declarant did not provide additional documents to confirm the declared value; 3) the provided payment documents contained discrepancies regarding payment terms. The expert opinion was of a consultative nature and could not be sufficient evidence.
Case No. 580/2606/22 dated 05/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that transferring a case by jurisdiction is not a public law relationship, as the court chairman in this case does not exercise administrative management functions but only performs procedural actions in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Challenging such actions should occur through civil proceedings by filing an appellate complaint, not through an administrative claim. Claims for moral damages, as derivative, should also be considered through civil proceedings.
Case No. 686/14903/22 dated 25/09/2024:
The court established that the plaintiff’s land plot (0.075 hectares), inherited from her husband, is overlapped by another plot (0.06 hectares) registered in the cadastre based on the acquirer’s application. The overlap area is almost 80%. The court noted that since the plaintiff’s plot was formed earlier (in 1994) and is in her ownership, the registration of the second plot overlapping it is illegal. The court also indicated that the proper defendant in the case is not the acquirer (the person who paid for the land management project) but the State Geocadaster body.
Case No. 1522/7210/12 dated 27/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that according to Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court must refuse to open appellate proceedings if the complaint is filed after one year from the date of preparing the full text of the court decision. Exceptions are only cases where the person was not notified about the case consideration or the term was missed due to force majeure circumstances. In this case, it was established that the defendant was properly notified about the case consideration, as he personally received court summons, and filed an appellate complaint 11 years after the decision was made.
Case No. 335/2150/21 dated 04/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the claim to recognize a transaction as sham is aimed only at establishing circumstances and does not in itself protect the violated right. In the case of violating the pre-emptive purchase right, the appropriate method of protection is a claim to transfer the buyer’s rights and obligations, which the plaintiff did not claim.The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of moral damage.
Case No. 2-46/2010 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns LLC “Hermes-Management” challenging the first instance court decision after 14 years regarding the invalidation of state land certificates. The cassation instance court noted that challenging a court decision for the first time by a person who did not participate in the case cannot automatically be considered an abuse of rights. The key issue is establishing whether the challenged decision concerned the rights and interests of the complainant. Moreover, the issue of a person’s awareness about the case review is only relevant when deciding on the restoration of the appeal term, not for concluding about abuse of procedural rights. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court ruling on returning the appeal and sent the case for a new review to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 914/2823/15 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is a review under exceptional circumstances of court decisions in a case of damages caused by the Furniture Combine ‘Stryi’ and other defendants. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered an application to review previous instance decisions under exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided without the reasoning part, where court legal positions are usually presented. Based on the review results, the Grand Chamber satisfied the application, canceled the challenged court decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court to resolve the issue of accepting the appeal.
Case No. 910/18048/23 dated 05/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by the company ‘Santehbudkonstruktsiya’. The court found no grounds to satisfy the cassation complaint, as the decisions of previous instances were lawful and substantiated. Part of the cassation proceedings was closed due to procedural grounds, and in another part, the complaint was deemed unfounded. The court decided to uphold the decisions of previous instances, which effectively confirms the legitimacy of the challenged Antimonopoly Committee decision. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint of LLC ‘Santehbudkonstruktsiya’.
Case No. 915/357/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: NEC ‘Ukrenergo’ attempted to recover debt of 76.4 million UAH from JSC ‘Mykolaivoblenergo’. Since the reasoning part of the decision is absent in the available text, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. From the available text, it is only evident that courts of three instances (first, appellate, and cassation) reached the same conclusions in the case. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint of NEC ‘Ukrenergo’ and left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which refused to recover funds.
Case No. 207/1786/23 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is cassation appeal of the appellate court ruling in a criminal case regarding a person’s accusation of theft (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for the decision, referring to the fact that preparing the full text of the ruling requires significant time. The full text of the decision with argumentation will be announced on December 9, 2024. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaints of process participants, canceled the appellate court ruling, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.Case No. 757/128/23-c dated 27/11/2024
The appellate court, which was supported by the Supreme Court, refused to recover the debt because the plaintiff did not provide the original loan agreement, but only its copy. At the same time, the defendant disputed the very fact of concluding the loan agreement. Under such circumstances, the copy of the agreement cannot be considered a proper and admissible evidence of the existence of debt obligations, especially considering that the loan agreement is a real contract and is considered concluded from the moment of money transfer.
Case No. 527/3578/22 dated 05/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft). The court decided to close the criminal proceedings because the law that established criminal liability for the committed act had lost its force. This decision is based on paragraph 4-1 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides for closing criminal proceedings in case of decriminalization of the act. As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and closed the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 160/13485/23 dated 05/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) special legislation on the State Bureau of Investigations does not contain clear norms regarding compensation for unused leave for previous years; 2) in such a case, the norms of general labor legislation apply, which guarantee compensation for all unused leave days upon dismissal; 3) the employer’s failure to provide leave cannot create negative consequences for the employee in the form of losing the right to compensation.
Case No. 904/4261/22 (904/4812/23) dated 26/11/2024
The appellate court refused to open proceedings because it considered the reasons for missing the appeal deadline and non-payment of court fees as invalid. However, the Supreme Court established that the appellate court should have first left the complaint without movement and provided time to eliminate the shortcomings, rather than immediately refusing to open proceedings. The court had no right to deprive the complainant of the opportunity to submit additional evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline.
Case No. 523/8280/22 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding the imposition of additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 3 years for traffic rules violation that caused serious bodily injuries. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person grossly violated traffic rules, moving at a speed of 107 km/h when 50 km/h was allowed, which led to a road traffic accident with serious consequences for three victims. The court also noted that it was not proven that driving a vehicle is the convicted person’s professional activity, and the victims’ opinion on punishment is not decisive. The additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive was recognized as necessary to prevent new offenses. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 462/1754/23 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court decided to close the criminal proceedings because the law that established criminal liability for the committed act had lost its force. This is a fundamental principle of criminal law – if the law that established the criminality of the act has lost its force.Case No. 334/4385/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding punishment for driving a vehicle while intoxicated, which caused the death of one person and bodily injuries to two persons. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) circumstances positively characterizing the accused (sincere remorse, compensation of damages, positive characteristics) are not sufficient for applying a milder punishment than provided by law; 2) the gravity of the committed crime and its consequences (death of a person and bodily injuries) require imposing punishment within the sanction of the article; 3) the imposed punishment corresponds to the principles of fairness and individualization. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s verdict, which imposed a punishment of 5 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 7 years.
Case No. 509/2156/19 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff previously in other court cases (regarding alimony and divorce) herself indicated the termination of marital relations since 2015. Therefore, her current claims about dividing funds accumulated after 2015 contradict the principle of good faith and her previous legal position. The court also took into account that property acquired during separate cohabitation due to the actual termination of marital relations may be recognized as the personal property of one of the spouses.
Case No. 734/1948/22 dated 04/12/2024
The court established that the bus station is not a carrier but only an intermediary between the passenger and the carrier. According to legislation, the transportation contract for a privileged passenger is considered concluded from the moment of boarding the bus when presenting the certificate to the driver, and not from the moment of obtaining a ticket at the cash desk. The bus station acts exclusively as a commercial representative of the carrier and cannot be held responsible for violations of privileged passengers’ rights to free travel.
Case No. 466/10392/19 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute – declaring illegal and canceling the order and certificates of ownership for non-residential premises in the basement of a multi-apartment building and their recovery into the ownership of the building’s co-owners. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the disputed premises were defined as non-residential premises allocated to the investor even at the stage of investment and construction and do not have any auxiliary equipment or structures necessary for co-owners to operate the building. The premises are an independent real estate object, not an auxiliary premises of the building. Moreover, the investor properly formalized ownership of these premises through the mechanism of an investment agreement. The Supreme Court left unsatisfied the cassation complaint of the plaintiffs and supported the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 761/35043/21 dated 04/12/2024
The first and appellate instance courts satisfied the claim for settlement, believing that the defendants did not provide the original housing lease agreement. However, the Supreme Court established that the courts did not properly investigate the evidence of the lease agreement’s existence – in particular, the fact of seizure of the original agreement within criminal proceedings and conducting a handwriting examination, as well as the fact that the plaintiff herself in another case requested termination of this lease agreement.Case No. 160/11733/22 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Audit Service’s conclusion regarding violations in the public procurement of road repair services. The court was guided by the fact that although one page with three sections was not scanned due to a technical error when publishing the contract, the signed contract fully complied with the project in the tender documentation and the winner’s tender proposal. The court emphasized that insignificant differences in contract terms that do not change the essential conditions and contractual obligations of the parties cannot be grounds for declaring the contract void. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances declaring the State Audit Service’s conclusion unlawful and canceling it.
Case No. 990/308/24 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff improperly combined claims against different defendants in one lawsuit – against the President of Ukraine (subject to the Supreme Court as the court of first instance) and against the National Security and Defense Council and the Security Service of Ukraine (subject to other administrative courts). At the same time, there are no legal grounds for separating these claims into separate proceedings.
Case No. 640/20409/21 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by which the tax authority additionally charged the enterprise tax liabilities and penalties. The court’s main arguments: 1) The tax authority improperly demanded that the enterprise discount short-term debt, as only long-term liabilities are subject to discounting. 2) The controlling body groundlessly believed that equipment setup costs should be capitalized rather than included in production costs. 3) Software that was part of the purchased equipment does not fall under the VAT exemption for software products, as it was supplied as an integral component of the equipment. The court decided to leave the tax authority’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and support the decisions of previous instances in favor of the taxpayer.
Case No. 334/527/22 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging a court verdict convicting a person for participation in the terrorist organization “DPR” and its armed formations. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) the presence of numerous evidence of the defendant’s participation in terrorist groups (witness testimonies, video recordings, telephone connection data, photographs); 2) that for qualification under Article 258-3 of the Criminal Code, a separate decision recognizing the organization as terrorist is not required; 3) that “DPR” is recognized as a terrorist organization in numerous official Ukrainian documents and ECHR practice. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance court’s verdict sentencing the person to 12 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for participation in a terrorist organization.
Case No. 990SСGС/14/24 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – A judge of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal challenging the High Council of Justice’s decision to bring him to disciplinary responsibility. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the decision (only the introductory and operative parts), it is impossible to establish the specific arguments the court was guided by when making the decision, as the motivational part of the resolution is absent. A full analysis of the court’s reasoning requires the complete text of the judicial decision. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to leave the judge’s complaint unsatisfied and the High Council of Justice’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 300/525/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court established that the controlling body did not prove the unreality of the plaintiff’s economic transactions with contractors. The primary documents provided by the enterprise…The documents (contracts, invoices, acts, payment documents) confirm the actual performance of raw leather processing operations and the purchase of chemical materials. Tax information about the lack of resources of counterparties does not in itself prove the fictitious nature of the operations. Additionally, the additional VAT assessment based on the inventory results is unfounded, as the shortage of inventory items has not been proven.
Case No. 640/15353/22 dated 05/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns challenging the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings on the appeal complaint of LLC “Nerudbudpostach” against the first instance court’s decision. The court was guided by the fact that the appeal complaint was filed on time – on 25.04.2024, on the last day of the 30-day appeal period, which is confirmed by the court stamp on the complaint copy. The Supreme Court emphasized that excessive formalism in interpreting procedural norms is an unlawful restriction of the right of access to court, and the right to appeal is an important component of the right to judicial protection, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 553/2879/21 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is recognizing a loan agreement debt for 661,000 UAH as joint and dividing it between former spouses. The court refused to recognize the debt as joint because: 1) it was not proven that the loan was used in the family’s interests; 2) PERSON_2 did not consent to the loan agreement; 3) although PERSON_1 claimed that the funds were used to purchase an apartment, the court found that the apartment was purchased with other funds; 4) the mere fact of being married is not grounds for recognizing the debt as joint without proving its use in the family’s interests. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions, refusing to recognize the debt as joint and divide it between the spouses.
Case No. 380/3713/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court established that the Personnel Commission made a decision about the prosecutor’s non-compliance with professional ethics and integrity criteria solely based on the fact that a protocol was drawn up against him under Art. 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (driving while intoxicated), while not taking into account that a court decision that had entered into legal force had closed the proceedings in this case due to the absence of an offense. The Commission did not investigate other characteristics of the prosecutor and did not provide a proper assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 160/23417/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court noted that the previous instances did not properly investigate all the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify what tasks and where the plaintiff performed during the disputed period, did not evaluate combat orders and arguments about the plaintiff’s presence in the military management body. The courts did not take all measures determined by law to establish the actual circumstances of the case.
Case No. 120/4951/23 dated 05/12/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that a serviceman’s participation in combat operations is confirmed by a set of documents – a combat order, a military unit certificate, and reports on bonus payment. The court also noted that violations in the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot deprive the serviceman of the right to receive compensation. An important argument was that the burden of proving the legitimacy of the refusal to pay is placed on the defendant military unit.
Case No. 686/19217/22 dated 06/12/2024
The court established that the employer violated the dismissal procedure, as he did not offer work
