Case No. 686/19871/22 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court incorrectly credited the period of the defendant’s detention from another criminal proceeding (18.03.2020-27.01.2022) to the term of punishment. This period had already been taken into account when rendering the previous judgment on 02.11.2022. According to Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, only the period of pre-trial detention related to a specific criminal proceeding can be credited to the term of punishment.
Case No. 752/11454/22 dated 05/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the fact that when the prosecution announces the completion of the pre-trial investigation on the last day of its term, the last day for submitting the indictment is the day when the defense side completed familiarization with the case materials. The courts of first and appellate instances did not take into account this position and incorrectly applied the procedural law norms regarding the calculation of terms. The courts also did not take into account that the period of familiarization with materials is not included in the pre-trial investigation term. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower instance courts on closing the criminal proceedings and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/11162/23 dated 12/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of 1.4 million UAH and recognition of obligations as terminated in the case between LLC “United Groceries” and JSC “Bank Sich”. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part of the decision, it is impossible to establish the court’s arguments, as it contains only final conclusions without a reasoning part. It can only be seen that the court considered the cassation complaint on several grounds provided by paragraphs 1, 3, 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings in part of one of the grounds for appeal and refused to satisfy the cassation complaint in another part, leaving the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 911/1175/18 (911/2260/23) dated 03/12/2024
The court, when considering the case, was guided by the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and substantiation of legal assistance expenses. It was taken into account that the plaintiff’s legal position was consistent throughout the case consideration, the cassation complaint was reviewed in one court session, and the claimed amount of expenses does not fully correspond to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided.
Case No. 910/17633/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court of first instance partially satisfied the claims and recovered 20,000 UAH of legal assistance expenses, taking into account the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality of these expenses, considering the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the amount of the claim. The appellate court agreed with this decision, noting that the reduction of expenses by 65% is justified given the claim amount of 5.7 million UAH and the large volume of case materials. The Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff provided all necessary documents to substantiate the expenses, and their amount was properly assessed by the courts.
Case No. 911/2581/14 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: appealing the court ruling on approving the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance of the bankrupt CJSC ‘Makarovo’. The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that the liquidator took all necessary measures to search for and return the debtor’s property, includingFiling a lawsuit to the court for the recovery of property from third parties. Although this claim was dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court recognized that the liquidator acted properly and fulfilled all legislative requirements for conducting the liquidation procedure. The court also took into account that creditors did not file complaints against the liquidator’s actions for a long time. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts on approving the liquidator’s report and the liquidation balance sheet of CJSC ‘Makarovo’, rejecting the cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/4323/23 dated 21/11/2024
The court of first instance refused to open proceedings, considering that there is a collision between legal norms regarding the court’s ability to independently establish the minimum monthly payment amount. The appellate court overturned this decision, indicating that the law directly grants the court such a right if the debtor proves the absence of financial capacity to fulfill the standard restructuring plan. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, noting that the law should be interpreted in favor of protecting human rights.
Case No. 464/3224/21 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the verdict against a former patrol police inspector convicted of misappropriating official fuel using official position. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) It was proven that the accused, using an official fuel card, illegally seized first 10 liters, and then another 250 liters of gasoline belonging to the police; 2) Each episode had an independent purpose and method of implementation, therefore, this is not a continuing crime, but their combination; 3) When considering several episodes of identical crimes in one proceeding, for qualifying actions as repeated, it does not matter whether the person was previously convicted. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of finding the person guilty of misappropriating property by abusing official position and sentencing to 3 years of restricted freedom with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.
Case No. 947/12873/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding conviction for stealing a cable worth 646.80 hryvnias and damaging a telecommunications network. The court was guided by the fact that after the crime was committed, a new law came into force, which decriminalized theft of property worth up to 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (2,684 hryvnias in 2023). Since the value of the stolen property was less than this amount, the person’s actions are now classified as an administrative offense, not a criminal crime. The court took into account that the law that mitigates responsibility has a retroactive effect in time. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – closed the criminal proceedings regarding theft but maintained the verdict for damaging the telecommunications network with a punishment of 2 years of restricted freedom.
Case No. 176/1033/22 dated 05/12/2024
The Supreme Court found that the appellate court made significant procedural law violations: did not provide proper assessment of the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, did not consider the motion for re-examination of evidence, did not evaluate arguments about the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime. The court also did not properly verify statements about possible crime provocation by law enforcement agencies.
Case No. 676/6929/17 dated 26/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) evidence obtainedDuring detention and search, they are admissible, as they exist independently of the person’s will; 2) no fact of crime provocation by law enforcement agencies was established; 3) the appellate court correctly examined the evidence and did not go beyond the scope of the appeal.
Case No. 572/2499/16-k dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s challenge to the appellate court’s acquittal in a case of interference with the activities of a law enforcement officer. Since this is only the operative part of the decision, the court does not provide arguments on the merits of the case. However, by satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and sending the case for a new appellate review, the Supreme Court points to significant violations committed by the appellate court in the case review.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court revoked the decision of the Volyn Appellate Court and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 925/893/23 dated 03/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the debtor fully repaid the tax requirements of the first and third categories (about 450,000 UAH), with only fines and penalties remaining unpaid (8.86 million UAH). According to the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine, if all creditor requirements are repaid, except for penalty sanctions, the court must close bankruptcy proceedings, and claims for fines and penalties are considered repaid.
Case No. 910/6131/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of an advance payment of 396,000 UAH and contract termination. The court changed the decisions of previous instances, determining that SE “Avtomaz-Ukraine” should be responsible for returning the advance payment, not JSC “State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine”. The court established that SE “Avtomaz-Ukraine” is the proper defendant in the case, as it received the advance payment. The court also obliged the plaintiff to compensate the bank for court expenses for case review in appellate and cassation instances.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal, canceling previous decisions regarding funds recovery from the bank and ordered to recover 396,000 UAH from SE “Avtomaz-Ukraine”.
Case No. 903/999/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt of 5,214,599.76 UAH from PJSC named after Ivan Franko in favor of LLC “Agro Fond”.
First and appellate instance courts satisfied the claims of LLC “Agro Fond”. PJSC named after Ivan Franko disagreed with court decisions and filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court found no grounds to cancel previous court decisions, as they were made in compliance with substantive and procedural law.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous instance court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/4398/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenge of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision dated 27.12.2022 No. 63-r/tk by LLC “Ukrainian Pipe Plant”.
The court closed cassation proceedings for one ground of appeal (p.1 part 2 art.287 of the Commercial Procedural Code) and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal for another ground (p.3 part 2 art.287 of the Commercial Procedural Code). The court agreed with the conclusions of previous instance courts, which recognized the challenged AMCU decision as lawful.
Based on the case review, the Supreme Court left the decisions of first and appellate instances unchanged.Here is the translation of the legal texts:
Case No. 927/249/24 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of 20,490.67 euros from the Chernihiv Customs and State Treasury in favor of the Estonian company Eesti Veski OU. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Estonian company, deciding that the issues of recovering lost profits amounting to 9,195.07 euros and legal assistance expenses of 22,082.26 hryvnias require additional consideration. The court referred these issues for a new review to the court of first instance for detailed examination of circumstances and proper substantiation. Based on the results of reviewing the cassation appeals, the Supreme Court partially annulled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case in these parts for a new review, leaving the remaining decisions unchanged.
Case No. 991/13377/24 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – application of sanctions against the Russian enterprise SPA “Rodina” in the form of asset seizure in state revenue. The court reviewed the lawsuit by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the recovery of flight control system steering aggregates sets and claim rights under the contract belonging to the Russian enterprise. The assets are in the possession of JSC “ANTONOV” and were received under a 2014 contract. The decision is based on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”, which allows seizing assets belonging to an entity from an aggressor country. The court fully satisfied the claim and ordered the seizure in state revenue of both physically available steering aggregates (4 units) and the claim right for an additional 5 aggregates under the contract.
Case No. 676/6929/17 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court regarding the convicted PERSON_7 through cassation procedure. Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, the document shows that the defense counsel of the convicted person filed a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s verdict, which the Supreme Court reviewed in the established procedure. The Supreme Court decided to leave the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 372/5545/23 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate appeal in criminal proceedings regarding violation of road traffic safety rules. Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision but indicates that the full text of the resolution will be announced later. It is important to note that the case concerns the accusation of a person under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the victim’s representative appealed the appellate court’s decision to return their appellate appeal. The Supreme Court granted the victim’s representative’s cassation appeal, annulled the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate appeal, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.Translation of the provided Ukrainian legal texts:
Case No. 462/1754/23 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a court verdict regarding a person accused of attempted murder. The court was guided by the following: 1) the prosecution did not provide irrefutable evidence of the defendant’s guilt – no fingerprints were found on the knife, the mechanism of inflicting wounds was not established, and the absence of third parties at the crime scene was not proven; 2) the victim in court denied the defendant’s involvement in inflicting the wounds; 3) the defendant’s behavior after the incident (providing first aid to the victim, calling an ambulance) is inconsistent with the prosecution’s version of intent to kill the victim.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/726/24 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the general meeting decision of the OSBB ‘Bocharova 52’ by an individual’s lawsuit.
Unfortunately, from the provided operative part of the resolution, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court, as the reasoning part of the decision is absent. The only thing that can be seen is that the court partially closed the cassation proceedings for one of the grounds of appeal, and in the other part left the cassation appeal unsatisfied.
The Supreme Court decided to partially close the cassation proceedings and leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, which apparently rejected the claim.
Case No. 913/401/20(913/327/23) dated 27/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Dispute between LLC “TOK ‘Pivdenna Bukhta'” and PERSON_1 regarding ownership of a land plot of 3.0688 hectares, which has dual registration with different cadastral numbers for two owners.
Main arguments of the court: The court noted that the simultaneous existence of state registration of two ownership rights to one real estate object contradicts the legislation. In case of dual registration, the possession of each person is incomplete, therefore, a court decision must necessarily lead to the closure of one of the sections of the State Register of Rights. The courts of previous instances did not investigate all the circumstances of the case and did not resolve the dispute on the merits, focusing only on the issue of the invalidity of the power of attorney from 2006.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 159/7433/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court took into account the victim’s initial testimony, provided in accordance with Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and reasonably rejected her later testimony in court, where she denied the fact of violence. The court considered the psychologists’ conclusions about the possible influence of the mother on changing the child’s testimony, and also confirmed the correctness of qualifying the actions as two separate episodes of crime, not as a continuing crime.They were separated by a significant time interval and were committed with a new intent.
Case No. 185/2010/24 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision on non-application of restrictive measures to a person convicted of domestic violence. The court noted that the appellate court, mitigating the sentence from imprisonment to community service, did not take into account the requirements of Article 91-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the possibility of applying restrictive measures to the offender. Considering the systematic nature of domestic violence and the interests of the victim (the offender’s mother), the court should have applied restrictive measures to the convicted person, in particular, referral to a program for offenders. The court also referred to the ECHR practice in the case “Opuz v. Turkey” regarding the state’s obligation to take measures to protect victims of domestic violence. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to resolve the issue of applying restrictive measures to the convicted person.
Case No. 904/872/24 dated 03/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the defendant (university) was late in paying for gas due to objective reasons – budget financing reduction during martial law. At the same time, the university fully repaid the principal debt before filing the lawsuit, took measures to resolve the situation, and is a non-profit budgetary institution. Taking into account these circumstances and the principles of fairness and reasonableness, the court decided to reduce the penalty by 95%.
Case No. 759/14123/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding sentencing for illegal acquisition and storage of amphetamine. The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person had previously been convicted of drug-related crimes and committed a new crime during the probation period. The appellate court correctly applied the provisions of Article 71 of the Criminal Code and reasonably imposed a more severe punishment of restriction of liberty instead of a fine, as the minimum punishment would not correspond to the degree of social danger of the person and would not contribute to the purpose of punishment. The court also took into account that when committing a new crime during the probation period, the rule of punishment aggregation should be applied. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, which sentenced the person to 5 years and 1 month of imprisonment.
Case No. 572/2499/16-k dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal against an acquittal of a former police chief accused of interfering with law enforcement activities during the detection of illegal amber mining. The cassation court emphasized several key points: first, the crime of interference with law enforcement is considered complete from the moment of interference, regardless of its consequences; second, the absence of claims from victims is irrelevant to the qualification of the crime; third, the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of all available evidence and ignored mandatory instructions from the Supreme Court from the previous case review. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance.
Case No. 991/5241/24 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to state revenue of a Mercedes-Benz G 400 D 2023 vehicle worth over 5.6 million hryvnias.In the introductory and operative parts of the decision, we do not see the court’s reasoning. However, from the decision, it is clear that the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office proved the unjustified acquisition of this asset by the defendants, meaning they could not confirm the legality of the sources of funds for purchasing such an expensive car. The court fully satisfied the SAP’s claim and ordered the seizure of the Mercedes-Benz G 400 D in state revenue as an unjustified asset.
Case No. 127/8593/22 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the verdict against a Russian Federation citizen convicted of public calls to change Ukraine’s borders and disseminating materials justifying RF aggression. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) Criminal liability for justifying the armed aggression of the RF (Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code) was established only from March 16, 2022, therefore, the defendant’s actions in February 2022 could not be qualified under this article. 2) The defendant’s publications on the ‘Odnoklassniki’ social network contained public calls to change Ukraine’s borders and propaganda of national intolerance, confirmed by an expert opinion. 3) The fact that the social network was blocked in Ukraine is irrelevant, as the crime was committed from Ukrainian territory. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceled the verdict in part of Art. 436-2 of the Criminal Code, but upheld the conviction for public calls to change Ukraine’s borders and storing materials promoting national intolerance.
Case No. 991/6143/21 dated 05/12/2024
The court of first instance found the defendants guilty, but the appellate court canceled this decision and closed the criminal proceedings due to lack of proof of guilt. However, the appellate court did not properly examine all the evidence that was investigated by the court of first instance and allowed contradictions in its conclusions regarding the evaluation of evidence.
Case No. 911/2665/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following arguments: 1) expenses must be real, proportionate, and reasonable; 2) the actual volume of services provided by the lawyer and their necessity were taken into account; 3) it was noted that the legal position did not change compared to previous instances and the lawyer was familiar with the case materials, as they represented the client in the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 910/2286/23 dated 10/12/2024
The appellate instance court, evaluating evidence regarding the amount of legal assistance expenses, was guided by the criteria of reality, substantiation, reasonableness, and proportionality of such expenses. In doing so, the court took into account the actual volume of services provided, the complexity of the case, and other important circumstances. The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate instance court correctly applied the procedural law norms regarding the distribution of court expenses.
Case No. 910/19547/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – obligation of a gas supply company to perform certain actions at the request of the OSBB (Association of Co-owners of Apartment Buildings). Unfortunately, from the provided text of the court decision, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the resolution is presented without the motivational part, where legal positions and court reasoning are usually set out. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the OSBB’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 904/141/20 dated 11/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the amount of expenses for le…Legal Assistance Fee:
1) Legal assistance fee constitutes only 2% of the claim value of 4.2 million hryvnias and is proportionate; 2) expenses are documentarily confirmed by a legal assistance agreement, acts, and other documents; 3) the case is complex, as evidenced by its prolonged and repeated consideration; 4) the dispute arose due to Ukrzaliznytsia filing a groundless lawsuit against an authority protecting the interests of vulnerable population groups.
Case No. 922/856/23 (910/8719/22) dated 05/12/2024:
The court established that under the guise of a property rights lease agreement, the actual building subject to mortgage was transferred for use. Since such transfer occurred without the mortgage bank’s consent, the agreement is void by law. The court noted that it is impossible to lease property rights to real estate separately from the property itself, and that the principle of contractual freedom cannot be used to circumvent legislation.
Case No. 916/4659/23(914/411/21) dated 19/11/2024:
Subject of dispute – invalidation of a non-residential premises sale agreement between LLC ‘OPTIMUS+’ and LLC ‘BRRENT’. The court’s decision was based on: 1) the initial 2013 sale agreement between the bank and LLC ‘OPTIMUS+’ was void as the property was sold at a price representing only 23.48% of its market value; 2) since LLC ‘OPTIMUS+’ did not acquire property ownership due to the initial agreement’s nullity, it had no right to alienate the property to third parties; 3) the plaintiff (LLC ‘MONEY FLOW’) has a legitimate interest in invalidating the disputed agreement as it possesses property rights to the contested property and actually possesses it. The court decided to uphold the previous instance courts’ decision invalidating the 29.01.2020 non-residential premises sale agreement.
Case No. 18/2694/11(917/1205/23) dated 28/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove rights violation by the respondent – State Property Fund (neither as a state property management entity nor as the debtor’s management body). Moreover, judicial recognition of economic management rights nullifies the legally established procedure for state property ownership and management. The court also noted that economic management rights are derivative of ownership rights and can only be registered after state ownership registration.
Case No. 910/14968/22 dated 27/11/2024:
Subject of dispute – consideration of creditor claims against the debtor LLC “Ukrbud Development” in bankruptcy proceedings. The court was guided by the fact that bankruptcy cases involve a heightened evidentiary standard for creditors who must properly document their claims. The court must verify not only the validity of claim assignment agreements but also the existence and amount of the debt assigned. The court also considered that a construction financing fund manager has the right to demand fund return from the developer only under specific legal conditions – in case of identifying contract violation risks. Following the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied LLC “Ukrbud Development’s” cassation appeal, canceled previous instance decisions regarding recognition of claims by LLC “FC “Zhytlo-Kapital” and LLC “Regional Resources” and remanded the case for retrial.Pre-Trial Review
Case No. 924/395/24 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the actions of a private executor regarding forced collection of natural gas debt amounting to 62 million UAH. The court was guided by the fact that the debtor (PJSC ‘Shepetivkagaz’) is included in the special Register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in the natural gas market. According to the law, enforcement proceedings against such enterprises must be suspended not only for the principal debt but also for penalties, fines, and inflation charges. The court also noted that the private executor should have independently verified the debtor’s presence in the public Register and stopped the collection. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which recognized the private executor’s inaction in not suspending enforcement proceedings as unlawful and ordered the removal of the arrest from the debtor’s property.
Case No. 18/2694/11(917/1206/23) dated 28/11/2024
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff did not prove a violation of their rights by the defendant – the State Property Fund of Ukraine; 2) the chosen method of protection (recognition of economic management rights) nullifies the legally established procedure for the state’s exercise of ownership and management of state property; 3) the State Property Fund did not dispute the enterprise’s economic management rights but only pointed to the need to comply with the procedure for forming the Unified Register of State-Owned Property.
Case No. 910/3600/22 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the debt of JSC ‘Kharkivgaz’ to LLC ‘YE Energy’ is confirmed by a court decision that has entered into legal force. The debtor’s arguments about the assignment of the claim to another company were rejected, as when considering such statements, the court examines only the fact of confirmed debt. The court also took into account that the replacement of the collector in the enforcement proceedings did not occur.
Case No. 924/413/24 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of additional agreements to the electricity supply contract and recovery of overpaid funds. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the supplier already knew about the electricity transmission tariff increase at the time of submitting the tender proposal and concluding the contract, and therefore should have taken this into account when forming the price; 2) it was not proven that the price increase was unforeseeable and could not have been anticipated; 3) according to the law, the price per unit of goods cannot be increased by more than 10% of the initial contract price. The court declared the additional agreements invalid and obligated the supplier to return overpaid funds amounting to 53,850.82 UAH.
Case No. 911/3337/21 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, as they knew about the contested contract since 31.08.2016 but filed the claim only in November 2021; 2) the plaintiff did not provide valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations; 3) the contract is not void and does not violate public order, as it was aimed at ensuring the public interests of the community in infrastructure development.
Case No. 333/4863/23 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of the verdict regarding a person convicted of theft (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court took into account that after the verdict was issued, the criminal act for which the person was convicted was decriminalized.This is an unconditional ground for closing the criminal proceedings, as according to the principle of retroactive effect of law, if a law abolishes the criminality of an act, it extends to persons who committed such acts before the law came into force. Therefore, the court decided to close the proceedings, despite the fact that at the time of committing the act, it was considered a crime. The Supreme Court revoked the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, closed the criminal proceedings due to decriminalization of the act, and released the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 991/2122/24 dated 05/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the list of investigating judge’s rulings that can be appealed is clearly defined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and is not subject to broad interpretation. The ruling on refusal to cancel property seizure is not included in this list. The court also took into account the legal opinion of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court dated 20.05.2024, according to which such rulings are not subject to appellate review.
Case No. 128/89/20 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning an appellate complaint in a case concerning the application of compulsory medical measures. The court did not provide arguments in the operative part of the decision, stating that the full text of the ruling would be announced later. However, given the satisfaction of the cassation complaint and the cancellation of the appellate court’s ruling, it can be assumed that the court of first instance made significant violations of procedural law when returning the appellate complaint. The Supreme Court satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, revoked the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court, and assigned a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 914/2587/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of debt under a natural gas transportation agreement, including principal debt and penalty sanctions (penalty, 3% per annum, and inflation losses). Main arguments of the court: 1) When determining the amount of penalty sanctions for February-March 2021, the provisions of NKREKU Resolution No. 235 dated 17.02.2021 should be applied, which established a 90-day payment term for daily imbalance invoices; 2) The appellate court did not take this resolution into account and did not properly verify the calculation of penalty sanctions; 3) The cassation court cannot independently verify the correctness of penalty sanctions calculations. Court decision: Cassation complaint was satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling regarding penalty sanctions of 41.7 million UAH was canceled and the case in this part was referred for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 464/3224/21 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – defense counsel’s challenge to the appellate court’s decision in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of criminal offenses related to seizure of property and documents. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision, but from the text it is clear that the case concerns charges under Articles 357 (theft, appropriation, extortion of documents) and 191 (appropriation, embezzlement of property) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court upheld the Lviv Appellate Court’s ruling, refusing to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 947/12873/23 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of the Odesa Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for theft and intentionalDamage to Technical Means. The court took into account that the law establishing criminal liability for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) had become invalid. The court also excluded from the verdict a reference to sentencing for a combination of crimes, since only one offense remained. At the same time, the court upheld the punishment for intentional damage to technical means. Based on the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – closed the proceedings regarding theft and left the punishment of 2 years of restricted freedom for damage to technical means.
Case No. 913/14/24 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a supply contract clause regarding the inclusion of VAT in the price of medical equipment and recovery of 211,000 UAH. Main arguments of the court: 1) At the time of contract conclusion, operations for supplying medical equipment to combat COVID-19 were exempt from VAT, so including VAT in the contract price was illegal. 2) Payment under the contract was made from budget funds through the National Health Service of Ukraine (NHSU), so unjustified VAT payment violated the principle of targeted use of budget funds. 3) NHSU, as a budget funds manager, has the right to recover unjustifiably paid funds, and the prosecutor had grounds to go to court in the state’s interests due to NHSU’s inaction. Court decision: The claim was satisfied – the contract clause regarding VAT inclusion was declared invalid, and 211,000 UAH was recovered from the supplier in favor of the state represented by NHSU.
Case No. 907/606/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the right to use the land plot arose automatically for LLC “Investgroup K-2” after purchasing real estate on this plot in accordance with Article 377 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. No competitive procedures were required, as this right was transferred from the previous land user. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s disagreement with the land plot size, without proving specific violations, is not grounds for declaring the lease agreement void.
Case No. 714/115/21 dated 05/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – challenging an acquittal for a person accused of theft from a store (chairs, refrigerated display, money, and products). The appellate court found the prosecution’s evidence inadmissible, as investigative actions for two theft episodes were conducted before entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. The court also critically assessed surveillance camera recordings where it was impossible to clearly identify the person and vehicle, and documents on goods shortage that did not contain proper documentary confirmation. Regarding the third episode, the court agreed with the first instance’s conclusions about the unproven guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, as it found no violations of procedural or substantive law in evidence assessment by lower courts.
Case No. 910/9450/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court refused to recognize the creditor’s claims, as they were based on a construction contract that was declared invalid in another case. The court noted that the creditor did not provide evidence of transferring any material values to the debtor under this contract that would be subject to restitution. The court also pointed out that the invalidity of the contract itself does not create grounds for monetary claims if the fact of transferring property or funds under such a contract is not proven.Case No. 911/1806/22 dated 03/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the tax authority missed the 10-day period for appealing the ruling of the first instance court. The reasons for missing the deadline (martial law, air raid alerts, lack of funding for court fee payment) were not recognized as valid, as it was not proven that these circumstances actually made it impossible to file an appeal on time. The mere fact of martial law is not an automatic basis for reinstating procedural deadlines.
Case No. 904/735/20 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that the state executor prematurely closed the enforcement proceedings without taking all possible measures for compulsory execution of the decision. In particular, it was not determined that the decision cannot be executed without the debtor’s participation, no checks were made on the debtor’s execution of the decision, and other enforcement actions provided by law were not taken.
Case No. 922/2738/21 (922/4386/23) dated 26/11/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of electronic auctions for selling the property of bankrupt LLC ‘Engineering Center ‘Energomash’, which occurred after the company was declared bankrupt. The court’s main arguments:
– After the debtor was declared bankrupt, its property could only be sold within the liquidation bankruptcy procedure, not through enforcement proceedings;
– The auction sold not only the bank’s pledged property but also other property that was not evaluated;
– The private executor improperly did not stop the auction after the debtor was declared bankrupt. The court partially satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal – canceled the decision regarding the invalidation of the auction protocol and act, but maintained the invalidation of the actual purchase and sale transaction in the electronic auction.
Case No. 808/451/18 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that all business operations of the enterprise with contractors were real and confirmed by properly executed primary documents. The tax authority did not provide adequate evidence of fictitious operations, and its conclusions were based only on assumptions about supply chain gaps and contractors’ lack of sufficient resources. The court emphasized that negative consequences of contractors’ violations cannot be automatically transferred to the taxpayer without proving their involvement in abuse.
Case No. 340/800/22 dated 12/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that Ukrtransbezpeka missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court decision. The reasons for missing the deadline (lack of budget funding for court fee payment) were not recognized as valid, as the state cannot benefit from violating its own rules, and lack of funding does not give the right to exercise the right to appeal at any time.
Case No. 240/31271/23 dated 12/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the law No. 1584-IX adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, which established lower pension amounts for Chornobyl victims, violates their right to adequate social protection. Therefore, the previous version of the law, which provided for a pension of 8 minimum pensions for age for disabled group 2, should be applied to the disputed legal relations. The court also took into account the legal position of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
