Case No. 991/2380/24 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the bank violated the restrictions established by the NBU by issuing 417,000 US dollars in cash to a client (with a limit equivalent to 100,000 UAH per day). There were also doubts about the proper financial monitoring when depositing this amount. The bank’s arguments that the issuance was lawful due to the branch’s location in a potential occupation zone, and that the operation had already been checked by the NBU, were deemed unfounded.
Case No. 904/6740/20 dated 27/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is establishing joint and several liability of the bankrupt enterprise’s director for failing to satisfy creditors’ claims due to not filing a bankruptcy petition. The court noted that joint and several liability for not filing a bankruptcy petition was introduced only with the adoption of the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine in 2019. Since the threat of the debtor’s insolvency arose before PERSON_1 became director, and the law in effect at that time did not provide for the director’s liability for not filing a bankruptcy petition, there are no grounds for imposing joint and several liability. The court also emphasized that the law does not have retroactive effect in time according to the Constitution of Ukraine. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decisions regarding the establishment of the director’s joint and several liability and rejected the bank’s application.
Case No. 910/14422/23 dated 03/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff PERSON_1, being the wife and a member of the company, personally participated in the general meeting, voted for the alienation of her husband PERSON_2’s share to new members, signed the meeting minutes, and provided a notarized consent for the sale of corporate rights. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove a violation of her rights by the contested meeting decision, and her behavior contradicts the doctrine of “venire contra factum proprium” (prohibition of contradictory behavior).
Case No. 592/13042/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the claims were filed against improper defendants – the City District Geodetic Cadastre Office, which is not a legal entity, and the Sumy City Council instead of the owner of the adjacent land plot PERSON_4, who should have been the proper defendant in the case. Moreover, the plaintiff herself initiated the replacement of PERSON_4 with the Sumy City Council as the defendant.
Case No. 389/3028/22 dated 04/12/2024
The court established that the dismissal was carried out lawfully because: 1) there was indeed a staff reduction due to difficult financial circumstances; 2) the employee was offered an available vacant security guard position, which he refused; 3) the dismissal procedure, including a 2-month notice and obtaining trade union consent, was followed. The plaintiff’s argument that another deputy director’s position should have been reduced was rejected, as the enterprise independently determines its organizational structure.
Case No. 335/11059/20 dated 04/12/2024
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that the excessive duration of the criminalThe prolonged nature of the proceedings could lead to moral suffering of an individual due to extended legal uncertainty, the need to visit pre-trial investigation bodies, and the inability to carry out ordinary daily activities. The legal basis for compensation was not the illegality of the prosecutor’s actions per se, but rather the unjustified duration and ineffectiveness of the pre-trial investigation. In determining the compensation amount, the court considered the nature and depth of the plaintiff’s moral suffering and was guided by principles of reasonableness and fairness.
Case No. 759/4050/21 dated 04/12/2024
The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that the apartment belonged to her personally and was not joint marital property. Moreover, there was a notarized statement from the wife consenting to the apartment’s mortgage, and the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding signature forgery was deemed inadmissible by the court, as the examination was conducted on document copies, which contradicts the established procedure.
Case No. 596/19/24 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the Ternopil Appellate Court’s verdict in a criminal case of fraud (Part 1, Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide arguments for the decision, as this is only the operative part of the ruling, with the full text to be announced later. In this case, the court decided to limit itself to drafting only the operative part, as preparing the full text would require significant time, as provided for by procedural legislation. The Supreme Court partially granted the convict’s cassation appeal, reversed the appellate court’s verdict, and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 146/1811/23 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute: Appeal of the appellate court’s verdict in a criminal case under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service). The cassation instance court reviewed the defender’s cassation appeal against the Vinnytsia Appellate Court’s verdict. As this is only the operative part, specific court arguments are not provided, but the decision shows that the Supreme Court found no grounds for reversing or modifying the contested verdict. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and rejected the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 758/9185/22 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute: Appeal of the court verdict regarding conviction for attempted theft of goods from stores during martial law. The court was guided by the new law dated 18.07.2024 No. 3886-IX, which stipulates that theft of property worth less than 2 non-taxable minimum incomes (which in 2022 was 2,481 UAH) is an administrative offense, not a criminal one. Since in this case the value of stolen property was 1,161.11 UAH and 1,899.50 UAH respectively, these actions are no longer considered criminal offenses. The law that cancels the criminal nature of an act has retroactive effect. The Supreme Court reversed the verdicts of lower courts and closed the criminal proceedings, as the law establishing criminal liability for such actions had lost its force.
Case No. 383/426/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute: AppealCourt Judgment Regarding the Conviction of a Person for Collaborative Activities as Head of Social Security Department in Occupation Administration
The court found the defense arguments unconvincing that the convicted person acted under coercion, as it was proven that her employment and organizational-administrative functions were performed voluntarily. The court also rejected arguments about lack of knowledge of the law on criminal liability for collaboration, since the law was officially published before the territory’s occupation. Moreover, witness testimonies confirmed that the convicted person held a leadership position, conducted meetings, and gave instructions to subordinates.
The Supreme Court upheld the court’s first instance and appellate court judgment, sentencing the person to 6 years of imprisonment, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for 15 years and property confiscation.
[Note: The rest of the text appears to be summaries of other court cases, which I have not translated as per the initial instruction to focus on the first paragraph.]and the decision on registration of lease right transfer to it was later cancelled by the Ministry of Justice as illegal. That is, the challenged decision did not concern the rights and obligations of LLC “Aktiv-RZ”.
Case No. 756/10697/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the verdict of the first and appellate instance courts regarding conviction of a person for attempted theft of a mobile phone during martial law. The court was guided by the following: 1) the defendant’s guilt was proven by the victim’s testimony, witnesses, and other appropriate evidence; 2) procedural violations cited by the defense (absence of meeting logs, improper notification of the victim) did not affect the legality of the decision; 3) the imposed punishment (5 years and 6 months of imprisonment) corresponds to the gravity of the crime and the person of the perpetrator. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, rejecting the cassation appeal of the defender.
Case No. 596/19/24 dated 04/12/2024
The appellate court found the person guilty of fraud, as they did not indicate in the subsidy declaration information about the sale of a car worth 110,000 UAH and illegally received a subsidy amounting to 4,241.18 UAH. However, the Supreme Court established that the appellate court did not explain which specific norm was violated, as the prohibition on receiving a subsidy concerned purchase, not sale of vehicles. Additionally, the issue of intent was not properly investigated, as the person claimed they were unaware of the car’s sale, which was transferred by power of attorney.
Case No. 755/4567/23 dated 05/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that local and appellate courts correctly assessed all evidence in the case – victim and witness testimony, automotive technical expert conclusion, traffic accident scene inspection protocol. These evidences confirm that the Ford Transit driver violated traffic rules while changing lanes, which led to a collision with a motorcycle. The defense’s arguments about incomplete evidence investigation and their contradictory nature were deemed unfounded.
Case No. 619/5310/20 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that land plots were transferred to individuals without the lessee’s consent, which contradicts Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”. The court established that lease agreements are valid, and evidence of their termination or cancellation is absent. The court also took into account that the lease right is protected equally with the right of ownership.
Case No. 161/4599/20 dated 06/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the respondent’s share (1/4) is insignificant and cannot be allocated in kind, joint use of the apartment is impossible, and termination of ownership will not cause substantial damage to the respondent, as they own other housing. Additionally, the plaintiff deposited compensation for the share’s value with the court.
Case No. 924/413/24 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of additional agreements between a municipal medical institution and LLC “Promgaz City” and recovery of funds amounting to 53,850.82 UAH. Unfortunately, from the provided introductory and operative parts of the decision, it is impossible to establish the court’s main arguments.Since the motivating part of the decision is missing. However, it can be seen that the case went through three instances, where the prosecutor’s office defended the interests of the state represented by the city council and the State Audit Service. The Supreme Court partially closed the cassation proceedings and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “Promgaz City”.
Case No. 914/3134/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court rejected the claim because the chosen method of protection was ineffective – at the time of filing the claim, the right to use the disputed plot had already been transferred to the Royal Beskids National Nature Park, not to the defendant. Moreover, amending the forest management planning documentation does not affect the legal regime of the land plot and does not restore the plaintiff’s rights.
Case No. 761/9081/16 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of robbery (Part 1 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution has not yet been compiled. However, from the operative part, it appears that the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions and found no grounds for its cancellation or modification. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Kyiv Appellate Court dated December 11, 2023, unchanged and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 922/3921/21 (922/1371/22) (904/2000/20) dated 19/11/2024
The court declared the contract invalid, based on two main arguments: first, the contract was signed on behalf of LLC “Kharkiv-Moscow” by a person (PERSON_1) who did not have the authority to do so, as their appointment as director was canceled by the Ministry of Justice as illegal. Second, the court established the fictitious nature of the contract, as the parties did not provide any evidence of actual economic activity under this contract (no payments, accounting reports, etc.), and the purpose of concluding the contract was to create artificial debt.
Case No. 608/1012/23 dated 05/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the right of a defense lawyer to appeal a court verdict issued against another person if the verdict contains statements about the involvement of their client in a crime. The court was guided by the fact that although PERSON_5 was not a participant in the proceedings, the verdict regarding PERSON_9 contains data that allows identifying PERSON_5 as an accomplice to the crime. According to the Supreme Court’s practice and CPC guarantees, a person has the right to appeal a court decision that affects their rights and interests, even if they were not a participant in the proceedings. The appellate court incorrectly refused to accept the complaint without properly checking whether the verdict affects PERSON_5’s interests. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 733/1129/19 dated 10/12/2024
The court established that the heir by will, PERSON_1, lived with the testator at the time of his death and filed an application for accepting the inheritance within the prescribed period. The testator’s son, PERSON_3, did not prove that the father was not aware of his actions when making the will or that the will was signed andUnfortunately, the text appears to be incomplete. I can translate the available portions:
Case No. 910/17633/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery from NNEGC “Energoatom” in favor of Corporation “TSM GROUP” of monetary funds in the amount of 5,777,540.37 UAH. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the court decision, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s resolution is provided without the motivational part, which contains legal justification. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation appeal by NNEGC “Energoatom” and left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which apparently satisfied the claims.
Case No. 910/15707/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of an additional agreement to a commission agreement, under which the commission agent provided funds to the principal under del credere conditions. The court established that the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations for challenging the agreement, as they applied to the court 7 years after its conclusion, although they should have known about the violation of their rights from the moment of signing. Regarding the claims of the third party (the sole participant of the plaintiff), the court indicated that the conclusion of the disputed agreement by the company’s director without approval of the general meeting may violate the rights of the company itself, rather than the corporate rights of its participant. The court denied satisfaction of the claims of both the plaintiff and the third party.
Case No. 906/1206/23 dated 03/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not follow the procedure for sending a proposal to conclude an additional agreement in its final version. The court noted that the case materials do not contain evidence of sending the adjusted additional agreement to the defendant as a proposal to conclude a contract (offer), which is required by the provisions of current legislation. The court also took into account that according to the contract terms, changes to it are possible only with the mutual consent of the parties.
Case No. 910/17027/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of a service agreement for managing a multi-apartment building, concluded between a housing cooperative and a management company. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the contract term is its essential condition according to the Economic Code of Ukraine. Since the contract was concluded for 7 years instead of the legally prescribed 1 year, this violates imperative legislative requirements. Invalidation of an essential contract term entails the invalidity of the entire contract. The court also took into account that other contract provisions (regarding penalties, budget changes, etc.) contradict the standard contract and restrict the rights of co-owners. The Supreme Court declared the contract invalid in full.
Case No. 465/7145/23 dated 03/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the committed crime is serious, and the accused committed several other mercenary crimes during their absence from service; 2) active assistance in solving the crime as a mitigating circumstance is not confirmed; 3) the status of a combat participant is not documentarily proven. Therefore, the court decided that release from serving…
(The last text appears to be cut off)Probation punishment would not correspond to the purpose of punishment.
Case No. 742/3068/18 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute – accusation of a farm manager for uneconomical land use through organizing petroleum products extraction, which led to soil fertility reduction. The court in its decision was guided by the following: 1) the prosecution did not prove the condition of the land plot before and after the accused acquired ownership; 2) potential impact on land pollution from other enterprises’ works was not verified; 3) part of the evidence was deemed inadmissible due to prior criminal proceedings closure. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal regarding the accused due to lack of proof of criminal offense.
Case No. 761/9081/16 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s verdict due to lack of proper accusation formulation for a person convicted of robbery. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court clearly outlined the accusation content, specifying all necessary elements – place, time, method of committing, and consequences of the criminal offense. The court also indicated that the verdict text clearly shows the appellate court agreed with the facts and legal assessment provided by the prosecution. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no significant violations that could be grounds for decision reversal. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 686/1699/20 dated 02/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s decision on releasing a person from criminal liability based on Article 49 of the Criminal Code (statute of limitations expiration). As this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. The full text of the resolution with the reasoning part is to be announced on December 9, 2024. The Supreme Court left unchanged the resolution of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court from November 28, 2022, and PERSON_8’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 196/1329/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court considered that the mother is not a person whose behavior negatively affects the children. Although she did not participate in upbringing for a long time due to illness and difficult financial circumstances, she did not abandon the children and expresses a desire to restore relationships with them. The court also took into account the guardianship authority’s conclusion about the inappropriateness of depriving parental rights and the absence of evidence of the mother’s guilty behavior.
Case No. 910/15707/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of an additional agreement to a contract between LLC “SPC “Techimpex” and SE “Ukrinmash”, and similar requirements from the third party LLC “Soft Market Solution”. The court of first instance rejected the claims, the appellate court supported this decision. The plaintiffs appealed the decision in cassation, but the Supreme Court found no grounds for its cancellation and left the cassation complaints unsatisfied. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to establish the specific court arguments, as only the introductory and resol[utive parts are provided].Operative part of the decision. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the previous courts, rejecting the cassation appeals of both plaintiffs.
Case No. 683/1806/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by two key arguments: first, the nurse was not an official person, as she did not perform organizational-administrative or administrative-economic functions; second, the medical prescription sheet is not an official document, as it does not contain legally significant information and is merely an internal operational document. The court also took into account that the job description referenced by the prosecution was approved after the alleged events.
Case No. 686/1699/20 dated 02/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the possibility of recovering procedural expenses from a person who was released from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that civil liability (including reimbursement of procedural expenses) does not violate the presumption of innocence, as it is not related to recognizing the person as guilty of committing a crime. The court also noted that changing the status of the accused after being released from criminal liability does not prevent recovering procedural expenses from them in favor of the victim. In this case, the court deviated from previous practice regarding the possibility of recovering expenses of pre-trial investigation bodies. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision on recovering procedural expenses from the person released from criminal liability in favor of the victim.
Case No. 752/1320/24 dated 02/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s decision to refuse to renew the term for appealing the ruling on extending detention. The court was guided by the fact that the defense attorney missed the deadline for filing an appeal by only one day because they were not aware of the full text and motives of the first instance court’s ruling. According to the Supreme Court’s practice, lack of awareness of the court decision’s motives is a valid reason for renewing the appeal term. The appellate court did not consider this practice and unreasonably refused to renew the term, thereby violating the right of access to justice. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 947/28830/22 dated 04/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is imposing arrest on property within the framework of securing a claim for debt recovery under a loan agreement. The court was guided by the fact that securing a claim is possible only regarding the defendant’s property, not third parties. Although the defendant donated a land plot to a third party after the start of the legal proceedings, which may indicate an intent to avoid responsibility, this is not grounds for arresting property that no longer belongs to the defendant. Property ownership is determined at the moment of making a court decision on arrest, not at the moment of filing the claim. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower courts regarding the arrest of the land plot belonging to a third party and refused to satisfy the claim for securing the claim in this part.
Case No. 925/181/20(925/256/23) dated 28/11/2024
The court guid
