Case No. 947/10158/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the owners carried out unauthorized reconstruction of the apartment by interfering with the load-bearing structures of the house – they dismantled part of the load-bearing wall and constructed an extension on the adjacent territory without the necessary permits. According to the expert’s conclusion, such actions violate construction norms and create a threat to the integrity of the house. The court also took into account that the adjacent territory is the common property of all residents.
Case No. 910/15043/21 (910/1668/24) dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of court expenses in the amount of 10,929.25 UAH for considering the cassation appeal in a case about invalidating legal transactions. The court was guided by the fact that since the cassation appeal of the Private Joint Stock Company with Limited Liability ‘AE – Agroexim Limited’ was satisfied and the appellate court’s ruling was canceled, the court expenses for filing the cassation appeal (including court fee and bank service fee) should be imposed on the property manager of LLC ‘Complex Agromars’. In this case, the court took into account the provisions of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the criteria for distributing court expenses, in particular their connection with the case consideration and the reasonableness of the amount. The court satisfied the application and ordered to recover court expenses in full from the property manager of LLC ‘Complex Agromars’ in favor of ‘AE – Agroexim Limited’.
Case No. 924/161/16 (924/443/24) dated 04/12/2024
The cassation instance court agreed with the appellant’s arguments that too much time had passed between obtaining the creditor’s consent for the sale of property (August 2022) and conducting the auction (January 2024) – one and a half years. During this time, the conditions for selling the property required updating regarding its value. Moreover, the property was sold at a very low price – 20,394 UAH with an initial price of 509,851 UAH, which could have violated the rights of creditors. The court also pointed out the incorrect definition of the circle of defendants, as the auction organizer was not included among them.
Case No. 462/2487/22 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging by the victim the appellate court’s decision in criminal proceedings against a person convicted of violating traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found significant violations in the appellate court’s decision that require a retrial. At the same time, the court maintained the decision to consider civil claims in civil proceedings. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the victim’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 902/25/24 dated 28/11/2024
The Supreme Court noted that the previous instance courts incorrectly closed the proceedings without conducting a final meeting and properly investigating the real financial condition of the debtor. The courts were limited to a formal comparison of liabilities for declared creditor claims with assets according to the balance sheet, did not conduct an inventory of property, did not establish its real value, and did not clarify the position of the creditors’ meeting.
Case No. 922/2738/21 (922/4386/23) dated 26/11/2024
The court when making a decision…
(Note: The last case appears to be cut off mid-sentence)The court was guided by the following considerations: 1) the amount of legal assistance expenses was documentarily confirmed by a contract, supplementary agreement, and a certificate of completed works; 2) the claimed amount is proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided; 3) it is not necessary to provide evidence of actual payment for the lawyer’s services, it is sufficient to confirm the volume of services provided and their payable cost.
Case No. 910/15043/21 (910/13298/23) dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that since the cassation complaint of the company ‘AE – Agroexim Limited’ was satisfied and the appellate court’s ruling was canceled, the court expenses for filing the cassation complaint (including court fee and bank service fee) should be imposed on the property manager of LLC ‘Kompleks Agromars’. In doing so, the court took into account the provisions of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the criteria for distribution of court expenses, particularly their reasonableness and proportionality.
Case No. 766/6976/21 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – illegal fishing using prohibited fishing gear, causing significant damage to the state amounting to 29,799 UAH. The court was guided by the following: 1) The Appellate Court correctly exempted the defendant from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations, but incorrectly applied special confiscation of property, as the law prohibits its application when exempting from liability due to statute of limitations expiration. 2) The Appellate Court also did not resolve issues regarding some physical evidence, lifting of property seizure, and distribution of court expenses. 3) Procedural expenses when exempting from criminal liability due to statute of limitations expiration should be charged to the state. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, amended the appellate court’s ruling by excluding the decision on special property confiscation, and resolved issues regarding physical evidence and procedural expenses.
Case No. 991/6770/23 dated 03/12/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) Nominal owners (grandmother and aunt of an official’s wife) did not have sufficient legal income to purchase such real estate; 2) all legally significant actions regarding these objects (document processing, utility payments, etc.) were carried out by officials; 3) the scheme of registering property to relatives and subsequent donation to officials indicates concealment of the actual owners.
Case No. 207/1786/23 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s decision to close criminal proceedings regarding theft during martial law due to decriminalization of the act. The court established that the appellate court made significant procedural violations: did not clarify the defendant’s position on case closure, did not obtain their consent, did not verify the arguments of the appellate complaint, and did not substantiate its decision properly. The appellate court also violated the case review procedure by not suspending proceedings to obtain the defendant’s consent for case closure, as required by law. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 922/493/21 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the debtor acted in bad faith: did not provide complete information about crossing the border in a vehicle andLegal Grounds for Using It, and Also Concluded a Loan Agreement, Which Was Later Declared Invalid. The Court Emphasized That the Right to Debt Relief Is Only Available to a Bona Fide Debtor Who Did Not Intentionally Fall into a State of Insolvency. It Is Important That Case Closure Is an Unconditional Consequence of the Debtor’s Dishonest Actions, Regardless of Their Motives.
Case No. 911/2247/21 dated 20/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that foreclosure on the collateral (property rights to monetary funds) occurred in violation of the legally established procedure, as it was carried out on the same day when the information about foreclosure was registered and a notification was sent to the debtor. This deprived the debtor of the opportunity to stop the foreclosure by fulfilling the obligation. Moreover, the agreements between the bank and LLC “Finspot” were concluded without the debtor’s knowledge and in violation of the credit agreement’s conditions regarding banking secrecy.
Case No. 24/142-b dated 26/11/2024
The Court rejected the application because the resolution of the Cassation Administrative Court, to which the applicant referred, is not a newly discovered circumstance in the legal sense. The Court noted that the applicant is essentially attempting to re-evaluate evidence already assessed by the court previously, which cannot be grounds for reviewing the decision based on newly discovered circumstances. Additionally, the court established the absence of grounds for issuing a separate ruling regarding the liquidator of JSC ‘Radical’.
Case No. 331/451/22 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the verdict against a driving school administrator who received an unlawful benefit of 6,000 UAH for influencing Ministry of Internal Affairs service center officials to successfully pass the practical driving exam.
The Court was guided by the following arguments: 1) The fact of money transfer is confirmed by covert investigative actions and money seized during the search with matching banknote numbers; 2) After transferring the funds, the applicant successfully passed the exam on the third attempt without taking additional driving lessons; 3) During conversations, the convicted person herself named the amount and assured that service center employees would help; 4) There are no signs of crime provocation by law enforcement agencies.
The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, which found the defendant guilty under Part 2 of Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code (abuse of influence) and imposed a fine of 51,000 UAH.
Case No. 991/5084/24 dated 10/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns appealing the High Anti-Corruption Court’s decision by “Ethoder Investments Limited” through an appeal.
Since the available text contains only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution without the motivational part, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court used in making its decision. A complete analysis of the court’s legal position requires waiting for the full text of the resolution, which will be prepared on December 16, 2024.
The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the appeal without satisfaction and the first instance court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 638/7105/21 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding an individual’s accusation of intentional murder and illegal weapons handling.Since the text is truncated at the end, I will translate the complete parts:
Supreme Court Case Summaries:
Case No. 202/5053/21 dated 04/12/2024:
The court proceeded from the presumption that property acquired during marriage is subject to joint shared ownership. The plaintiff could not refute this presumption or prove that the apartment was purchased exclusively with his personal funds or his mother’s funds. The court also considered that the majority of the loan was repaid during the period when the parties were married.
Case No. 695/1039/22 dated 20/11/2024:
The court established that the village council acted in bad faith by knowingly including the plot in the list of lands for auction of lease rights, despite the plaintiff’s intentions to obtain ownership and having an approved land management project. The court also considered that according to the law, land auctions are not conducted for free transfer of land plots to combat veterans. Moreover, the person on the basis of whose land management project the plot was formed has priority right to receive the land plot.
Case No. 300/8722/23 dated 10/12/2024:
The court established that the appellant (Main Directorate of the State Treasury Service) actually eliminated the deficiencies in the appellate complaint (paid court fee) in a timely manner – before the end of the 10-day period. The court thoroughly analyzed the procedure for calculating procedural terms and concluded that the appellate court incorrectly determined the term as missed. The Supreme Court also noted that such violation of procedural law norms led to an illegal ruling that impedes further proceedings in the case.
Case No. 758/9907/21 dated 27/11/2024:
The appellate instance court violated the procedural rights of the father by not providing him an opportunity to participate in the court session via video conference and not considering the motion to postpone case consideration. The appellate court did not take into account that during the child’s stay with the father, her condition significantly improved, which is confirmed by psychologists’ conclusions. The court also did not take into consideration that the guardianship authority’s conclusion was issued without considering all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 369/15888/21 dated 20/11/2024:
When resolving the issue, the court was guided by the following arguments: 1) expenses must meet the criteria of actual service provision and reasonableness of their amount; 2) some claimed services (court representation, filing a motion to expedite case consideration, filing a statement on court expenses) cannot be considered as separate procedural actions subject to compensation; 3) a detailed calculation of time spent and the cost of each service separately was not provided.
Case No. 560/2929/24 dated 10/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the introduction of martial law in itself is not a valid reason for missing the appellate complaint term, unless specific circumstances preventing timely filing are proven. The complainant had access…
(Note: The last case is cut off mid-sentence in the original text)Access to the ‘Electronic Court’ system was not provided, and no evidence of objective obstacles to timely appeal was submitted. The court also noted that failure to meet the requirements for paying court fees during the first appeal attempt does not grant the right to file a repeated appeal outside the established timeframes.
[Case No. 214/7159/15-ц dated 27/11/2024]
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the local self-government body’s decision on changing apartment lease agreement conditions and recognition of tenant status.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the local self-government body’s decision was made within its powers and in execution of a previous court decision; 2) the defendant was not properly notified about the first instance court proceedings, which violates the right to a fair trial; 3) the claim for tenant recognition was not subject to appellate review and could not be reconsidered in this part.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – maintaining the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to declare the local self-government body’s decision illegal, but canceling the decision in the part concerning tenant recognition, since this claim was not subject to appellate appeal.
[Case No. 9901/420/21 dated 09/12/2024]
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the Presidential Decree by an individual.
As the provided text lacks the substantive part of the decision, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court relied on when rendering the decision. The text only includes the introductory and operative parts of the judicial decision.
The court fully rejected the administrative claim.
[Case No. 714/1022/23 dated 20/11/2024]
Subject of Dispute: Ensuring the return of a minor child to the Italian Republic after illegal removal by the mother to Ukraine.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the child has permanently resided in Italy from birth until removal; 2) the father did not consent to the child’s removal and actively attempted to return the child, addressing competent authorities less than a year after removal; 3) the mother did not prove the existence of a serious risk of physical or mental harm to the child if returned to Italy and did not provide evidence of domestic violence by the father.
The court satisfied the claim and obligated the mother to return the minor child to the permanent residence location in the Italian Republic.
[Case No. 280/12207/21 dated 10/12/2024]
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the company timely submitted documents for license obtaining before new licensing requirements took effect. The delay in license issuance occurred due to government authorities’ procrastination in determining the licensing procedure and authorized body. Such state actions violated the ‘good governance’ principle and created obstacles for conscientious taxpayers.
[Case No. 341/1526/23 dated 27/11/2024]
The court was guided by the forensic psychiatric examination conclusion confirming the individual’s mental disorder in the form of dementia, which deprives them of the ability to understand the significance of their actions and control them. The court noted that the fact of the grandson’s military service cannot be grounds for refusing to appoint him as guardian, as no such prohibition is established by legislation. The key condition is the presence of a submission from the relevant body.Guardianship and Custody Regarding the Expediency of Appointing a Specific Person as a Guardian.
Case No. 910/9087/23 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Orders of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on Cancellation of Registration Actions Regarding Immovable Property and Claiming This Property from Illegal Possession.
Main Court Arguments: 1) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of emergence, change, and termination of property rights to the disputed immovable property. 2) The moment when the respondent became aware of the challenged registration actions was not precisely established, which is important for determining compliance with the appeal deadline. 3) Courts did not properly verify the Ministry’s compliance with the procedure for notifying interested parties about complaint consideration.
Court Decision: Cassation complaint partially satisfied, decisions of previous instance courts cancelled, case referred for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 917/264/15 dated 10/12/2024
The court rejected the application for review, as the new evidence provided by the applicant (responses to lawyer inquiries regarding non-execution of previous court decisions) are not considered newly discovered circumstances under procedural law. The court emphasized that new evidence obtained after the court decision, as well as circumstances that could have been established through timely evidence submission, cannot be considered newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 295/17285/21 dated 27/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the father’s deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities. The court took into account that the respondent pays alimony in full, objects to deprivation of parental rights, and intends to restore relations with the child. The court also noted that the lack of communication between father and daughter is related to the absence of communication between parents and the mother’s departure abroad with the child.
Case No. 420/28384/23 dated 10/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the military unit did not prove valid reasons for missing the appeal deadline. In particular, references to martial law, change of representative, and issues with electronic cabinet access without proper substantiation and evidence cannot be considered valid reasons. The court also noted that improper organization of the appeal process is a subjective reason, not an objectively insurmountable circumstance.
Case No. 466/1445/21 dated 04/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court considered the case on December 14, 2023, in the absence of the plaintiff and their representative during the “air raid” signal, which is an objective obstacle to appearing in court. The appellate court did not properly ensure the party’s right to participate in case consideration and did not resolve the issue of postponing case consideration, taking into account the emergency situation.
Case No. 580/9551/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that additional remuneration during martial law has a temporary nature, as it is paid only during martial law, its amount is not fixed and is determined by commanders’ orders. Therefore, such remuneration is
