Case No. 689/1249/22 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – termination of a land lease agreement due to the transfer of ownership to an heir. The court was guided by the following: 1) the lease agreement conditions provided for the possibility of termination upon transfer of land ownership to another person; 2) the new owner (heir) expressed a desire to independently cultivate the land and notified the lessee of the intention to terminate the agreement; 3) the plaintiff filed a lawsuit within the statute of limitations, as they learned about the existence of the lease agreement only in 2022. The court granted the claim and terminated the land lease agreement.
Case No. 461/4039/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court established that the claim to cancel the registration of ownership is not an appropriate method of protecting the land owner’s rights – the appropriate method of protection in such a case is a claim for the demolition of unauthorized construction. Additionally, the court noted that the dispute regarding the cancellation of ownership registration for LLC “Geografiya” is subject to consideration in economic, rather than general courts, given the composition of the parties.
Case No. 501/4022/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff challenged the property valuation conducted before the auction, but such actions have a separate appeal procedure and cannot be grounds for invalidating the auction itself. Moreover, the claims to invalidate the auction protocol and ownership certificate are inappropriate methods of protection, as these documents merely record the auction results but do not in themselves generate rights.
Case No. 440/6856/22 dated 06/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: recovery of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal from the Poltava City Council in favor of the former village head. The court noted that with the adoption of Law No. 2352-IX dated 19.07.2022, amendments were made to Article 117 of the Labor Code, which limited the period of average earnings payment for settlement delay to 6 months. Therefore, for the period before 19.07.2022, the old version of the article applies with the possibility of court reduction of payments, and for the period after 19.07.2022 – the new version with a 6-month limitation, but without the possibility of additional court reduction. The court deviated from previous practice regarding the possibility of court reduction of payments under the new version of the article. Decision: the case was sent for a new hearing to the court of first instance to correctly apply legal norms, taking into account different versions of Article 117 of the Labor Code.
Case No. 757/59258/18-ц dated 20/11/2024
The appellate court established that the plaintiff physically could not have signed the contracts, as on the day of their conclusion, she was in another location and was flying abroad, which is documented. The court rejected the handwriting expert examination conclusion confirming the authenticity of the plaintiff’s signatures, as the examination was not conducted within the judicial proceedings. However, the appellate court did not consider the motion for a repeated examination and did not properly investigate all evidence.
Case No. 396/47/17 dated 06/12/2024
The appellate court, based on the conclusion of a judicial construction and technical expertise, established the technical possibility of dividing the house between the parties. The expert confirmed that the house does not have its ownUnauthorized Additions or Reconstructions. The parties agreed with the expert’s proposed property division option, under which each co-owner is allocated a separate part of the house with auxiliary structures.
Case No. 904/284/22 (904/2092/23) dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed property cannot be considered ownerless, as it is in state ownership and assigned to the State Enterprise ‘Dniprodiprovodohosp’ on the right of economic management, which is confirmed by the Unified State Property Registry. The court also took into account that no one can be unlawfully deprived of ownership rights, and forced alienation is possible only in the manner prescribed by law.
Case No. 440/16338/23 dated 09/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the decisions and actions of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding recalculation and payment of pension to a former Ministry of Internal Affairs employee. The court was guided by the fact that part of the claimed requirements is independent and was not the subject of consideration in the previous case No. 440/6755/23, therefore, the refusal to open proceedings was unjustified. At the same time, another part of the requirements indeed duplicates the lawsuit already pending in court, so their return to the plaintiff is lawful. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceled the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to open proceedings and sent the case for a new review, but maintained the return of the statement of claim for identical requirements.
Case No. 911/4610/15 (911/1081/23) dated 27/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) according to the NKRECP Resolution No. 332, during martial law, penalty sanctions between electricity market participants were suspended; 2) the court has the right to reduce the amount of penalty if it is excessive, considering the specific circumstances of the case; 3) reducing the penalty by 50% in this case corresponds to the principles of reasonableness and fairness, considering that both parties suffered losses due to military aggression.
Case No. 520/10448/19 dated 06/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that PERSON_6, who filed an appellate complaint as a person not participating in the case, did not prove that the first instance court decision resolved issues regarding their rights and interests. Although PERSON_6 is a co-owner of the disputed property and a guarantor under the credit agreement, their rights are protected by the spouse who entered into the contract. Moreover, the subject of the dispute is recognizing purchase and sale agreements as invalid, not foreclosure on the mortgage subject.
Case No. 383/686/22 dated 06/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a loan agreement was concluded between the parties, confirmed by a receipt dated 03.08.2012, under which the defendant received 400,000 UAH (equivalent to 50,000 USD). The defendant did not fulfill the obligation to return the loan within the specified time. The receipt provided by the defendant for the return of funds was recognized as unreliable according to the forensic expert’s conclusion. The court took into account that the parties agreed on returning the amount in USD equivalent.
Case No. 362/985/23 dated 09/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the debt for the principal loan amount was already established by a previous court decision; 2) during the martial law period, the borrower is exempt from liability for delay; 3) afterUpon expiration of the loan agreement, interest for the use of funds is not accrued.
Case No. 296/6156/22 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recognition of information as unreliable and refutation of an article published on the “Ukrainska Pravda” website regarding the plaintiff’s activities in the field of copyright management. The court was guided by the fact that for disputes about refuting information posted on the internet, both the publication author and the website owner should be proper defendants, as the owner creates the technical possibility for information dissemination. Since the plaintiff filed a claim only against the article’s author, without involving the website owner (LLC “UP MEDIA”), the court recognized that the case was filed against an incomplete range of defendants. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions to reject the claim because the lawsuit was not filed against all proper defendants.
Case No. 607/20401/20 dated 09/12/2024
The court rejected the claim, guided by the fact that a previous court decision had already established the legality of the defendants’ acquisition of the disputed premises. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove which of their rights were violated by the contested OSBB general meeting decision and state registration of ownership.
Case No. 308/11243/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court rejected the cassation appeal because: 1) the ruling on opening appellate proceedings is not subject to review under newly discovered circumstances; 2) procedural defects in case consideration are not considered newly discovered circumstances; 3) the OSBB representative’s powers were properly confirmed by an extract from the Unified State Register.
Case No. 753/8640/24 dated 04/12/2024
The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court incorrectly did not consider that the electronic power of attorney was properly formed through the “Electronic Court” subsystem using electronic cabinets and digital signatures of the principal and representative. The court emphasized that system users cannot influence the electronic power of attorney’s form, as it is automatically generated according to a set algorithm, therefore the requirement for notarial certification is excessive formalism.
Case No. 910/6555/21 dated 27/11/2024
The cassation instance court noted that previous courts did not properly examine the content of the inspection report and tax notification-decision, did not assess the circumstances regarding the creditor’s monetary claims’ grounds, their nature, and compliance with legislation. The debtor’s objections regarding offsetting counterclaims that could reduce the debt amount were also not investigated.
Case No. 909/321/24 dated 03/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the defendant indeed did not pay for the supplied gas, which is documentarily confirmed. However, the court considered the defendant’s critical financial condition (significant losses and debts) caused by martial law and systematic non-payments by consumers. Guided by principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court decided to reduce the penalty by 50%.
Case No. 487/2777/23 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the bank did not provide appropriate evidence…Submission of a written demand to the borrower to remedy violations of the credit agreement. Moreover, at the time of property ownership registration, there was a moratorium on seizure of property for foreign currency loans, and the disputed apartment was the borrower’s only housing with an area less than 140 sq.m. Additionally, no evidence of non-performance of credit agreement terms was provided to the state registrar.
Case No. 922/5379/23 dated 03/12/2024
The appellate court, while canceling the first instance court decision, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff (gas company) did not prove the defendant’s (water utility) guilt in the prolonged gas leak, as the plaintiff himself violated the norms for maintaining gas distribution networks and did not ensure timely localization of the accident due to flooding of shut-off valves. The court also established that the fire on the gas pipeline occurred precisely due to improper equipment maintenance by the gas company.
Case No. 14/169-нр(915/1853/23) dated 09/12/2024
The court refused to open appellate proceedings since the appeal was filed after the deadline, and the reasons for missing the deadline (representative being on vacation) were not recognized as valid. The court noted that organizing employee work is the responsibility of the enterprise itself, and the company was not limited in its ability to entrust the appeal filing to another representative.
Case No. 360/777/23 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute: The plaintiff challenges the Pension Fund’s inaction regarding pension recalculation and payment since 2009. Main court arguments: 1) The right to pension is a constitutional right of citizens and cannot be limited by a person’s place of residence; 2) Documents on work experience and salary issued before the occupation of territories are valid evidence for pension recalculation; 3) The plaintiff is entitled to pension increase as a war child and compensation for income loss due to untimely payment. Court decision: Partially satisfy the claim and oblige the Pension Fund to recalculate the plaintiff’s pension from 2009, considering total work experience, archival salary references, war child status, and pay compensation for pension payment delay.
Case No. 560/11679/22 dated 09/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the appeal deadline by more than a year, while a copy of the first instance court decision was properly sent to the plaintiff by three methods – registered letter, email, and telephone notification. The court also considered that parties must independently follow the case progress, and observing appeal deadlines is an important guarantee of legal certainty.
Case No. 910/20180/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the Kyiv City Council acted within its powers when transferring the park land plot, as it represented the territorial community’s interests as the landowner. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the disputed land plot was not part of the park territory according to the Presidential Decree on its creation, and also did not prove the existence of his rights to this plot or the fact of his interests being violated.
Case No. 295/13519/22 dated 04/12/2024
The court established during the case consideration that both parents created appropriate living conditions for children, are positively characterized, and responsibly approach upbringing.One child expressed a desire to live with the father, while the other wanted to live with the mother. The courts of first and appellate instances did not take these circumstances into account and did not consider the possibility of applying a shared physical custody model with alternating residence of children with each parent. Additionally, the factual circumstances regarding the established practice of alternating children’s residence with parents, which has been in place since 2021, were not investigated.
Case No. 420/14551/23 dated 09/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor learned about possible legislative violations only in April 2023 after receiving responses from the State Geological Survey to his inquiries. The court considers the conclusion of previous instances erroneous that the prosecutor should have learned about the violations as early as 2016 when the information was published on the website. Since the prosecutor filed a lawsuit in June 2023, the three-month filing period was observed.
Case No. 906/1205/23 dated 26/11/2024:
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff did not follow the procedure for sending a proposal to conclude an additional agreement in the final version; 2) the case materials do not contain evidence of sending the revised additional agreement to the defendant; 3) the additional agreement proposed by the plaintiff is not a legal act whose mandatory conclusion is provided by law.
Case No. 824/79/22 dated 09/12/2024:
Subject of dispute – challenging actions and decisions of the state executor in a case of forced execution of a decision on recovering funds from Energoatom JSC in favor of the Swiss company Zentrum Solutions AG. The cassation instance court reviewed the appeal of Energoatom JSC against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal. Since this decision contains only the operative part without reasoning, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the court considers a new review of the case in the appellate instance necessary. The Supreme Court satisfied the appeal of Energoatom JSC, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and sent the case for a new review to the same court.
Case No. 908/3287/21 dated 05/12/2024:
The court established that the executor (PE ‘Enhol’) stopped providing services due to systematic non-payment by the customer (NAEK ‘Energoatom’) for already provided services, which led to the impossibility of purchasing necessary materials and paying salaries to employees. At the same time, the plaintiff did not prove the validity of the calculation of penalty sanctions, as it did not provide evidence of the specific volume of services that were to be provided during the disputed period.
Case No. 875/3625/21 dated 04/12/2024:
The court recognized the executor’s actions as lawful, since according to amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine from 2021-2023, the land plot lessee gained the right to alienate and transfer the lease right to pledge without the owner’s consent. Considering that the debtor did not execute the decision on recovery of funds and actively transferred land plots to sublease, imposing an arrest on lease property rights was a justified measure to ensure the execution of a court decision.
Case No. 753/197/23 dated 06/11/2024:
Subject of dispute: removal of a minor child from the father without depriving parental rights and granting permission to the mother to process documents for the child’s residence abroad. The court in rendering its decision was guided…
