Case No. 738/429/23 dated 04/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the creditor timely (in December 2020) presented claims to the heirs after the debtor’s death. The appellate court erroneously applied the statute of limitations, as the representative of the defendants did not substantiate their statements with circumstances of changing the terms of performance of obligations, but only referred to the missed term for presenting claims to the heirs. At the same time, the eviction claims are premature, as filing such a lawsuit is not necessary for the implementation of the mortgaged property.
Case No. 371/569/21 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the closure of criminal proceedings against two persons accused of misappropriation of property and official forgery. The court of first instance and the appellate court closed the criminal proceedings on the grounds of paragraph 10, part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, the Supreme Court, having considered the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, concluded that it was necessary to cancel the previous court decisions. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part, it is impossible to establish the specific motives for such a decision, as they will be set out in the full text of the resolution. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 711/5299/21 dated 04/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff timely declared the existence of court expenses for legal assistance and provided relevant evidence of their incurrence. The court took into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided by the lawyer, the consideration of the case in simplified proceedings, and the need to comply with the criteria of reasonableness and fairness. At the same time, the court reduced the claimed amount of expenses from 31,000 UAH to 10,000 UAH, considering such an amount to be proportionate.
Case No. 331/1255/17 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that although the store owner provided a guarantee letter about moving the supports, this is not a sufficient basis for imposing such an obligation on her, as the supports are communal property on the balance sheet of the enterprise. At the same time, the communal enterprise’s right to possess and use the supports is not violated, as they continue to be used for their intended purpose.
Case No. 461/5877/22 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that after the expiration of the deposit agreements and the adoption of a decision on recovery of funds in 2012, the contractual relations between the parties were terminated, therefore, there are no grounds for charging contractual penalties. Regarding moral damages – the court took into account that the plaintiff has already exercised the right to compensation in another case, and the legislation does not provide for multiple compensation of moral damages for the same fact of rights violation.
Case No. 369/12118/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, recovering debt, interest, and inflation losses from the defendant. The appellate court canceled this decision and transferred the case to the commercial court, as bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the defendant. However, the Supreme Court established that the bankruptcy case was opened after the decision was made by the court of first instance, therefore, the transfer of the case to the commercial court was unlawful.
Case No. 263/14009/21 dated 12/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is an appeal…Resolution of the Appellate Court’s Ruling on Returning the Prosecutor’s Appeal against the Verdict in a Criminal Case. The court was guided by the fact that the list of information that must be contained in the appeal is exhaustive and defined by Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Appellate Court improperly demanded that the prosecutor provide information about the whereabouts of the accused, as such information is not among the mandatory requirements for the content of the appeal. Moreover, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to appeal as a fundamental principle of the rule of law. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and assigned a new review of the case.
Case No. 204/10297/23 dated 16/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a military unit’s certificate of death is not sufficient proof of death, as there are no medical documents or other evidence that would reliably confirm the fact of death. Under such circumstances, it would be correct to file a petition for declaring a person deceased, rather than establishing the fact of death. The court also noted that the employer is not an appropriate applicant in such category of cases.
Case No. 591/6556/23 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is appealing the verdict of the Sumy Appellate Court regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The Supreme Court reviewed the cassation appeal of the defender, who challenged the appellate court’s verdict. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court, as they will be set out in the full text of the decision, which is to be announced later. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court left the defender’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 287/1093/21 dated 12/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of closing the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms regarding a group of persons suspected of illegal logging and official crimes. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the notification of the completion of the pre-trial investigation was not properly served to the suspects and their defenders; 2) actual familiarization with the case materials occurred after the expiration of the established pre-trial investigation term; 3) the indictment was sent to the court beyond the pre-trial investigation term. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances on closing the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms.
Case No. 619/5039/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff (mother) did not prove by proper evidence the fact of the father’s deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities. The court also took into account the child’s opinion, who expressed a desire to communicate with the father. The court emphasized that changing the child’s surname must correspond to their best interests, and in this case, there are no grounds to believe that the father’s surname contradicts the child’s interests, as the father pays alimony.
Case No. 507/1807/22 dated 11/12/2024
The court took into account that although the ground for closing the criminal proceedings is not directly provided for in the law on compensation for damage, since the person’s guilt was not proven in court, they have the right to compensation. When determining the amount of compensation, the court considered the duration of criminal prosecution (98 months) and the minimum wage at the time of case consideration (6,700 UAH). The court was also guided by the principle ofRule of Law and the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights Regarding the Right to Liberty and Personal Inviolability.
Case No. 396/1398/21 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – convicted PERSON_6 challenging the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal dated March 18, 2024. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for the decision – they will be presented in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced on December 16, 2024. The Supreme Court decided to leave the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal unchanged and dismiss the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 440/295/19 dated 11/12/2024
The appellate court left the claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s repeated non-appearance in court hearings but maintained the first instance court’s decision to recover legal assistance costs of 16,242 UAH from the plaintiff. The Supreme Court indicated that when leaving a claim without consideration, recovery of court costs is possible only if unreasonable actions by the plaintiff are proven, demonstrating abuse of procedural rights. Since the appellate court did not properly examine this issue, the case regarding court costs was sent for a new review.
Case No. 592/9605/21 dated 11/12/2024
The court found that the appellate court legitimately conducted a hearing without the defense’s participation because: 1) for 10 months, the accused and their defender systematically requested postponements for unconvincing reasons; 2) they did not provide proper evidence of impossibility to participate in the hearing, even via video conference; 3) such behavior was considered abuse of procedural rights and process delay.
Case No. 209/1008/24 dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling has not yet been compiled. However, based on the operative part, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court established a violation of the person’s right to appeal, which is a fundamental right in criminal proceedings. Following the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and assigned a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 130/3611/23 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the verdict against a person who made a false report of a restaurant bombing during a wedding. When making the decision, the court was guided by: 1) the crime is serious and poses a threat to public safety, disrupts institutional operations, and causes panic among the population; 2) the convicted partially compensated for damages and sincerely repented, which are mitigating circumstances; 3) the imposed punishment of 2 years of imprisonment is the minimum within the article’s sanction and corresponds to the crime’s severity and the perpetrator’s personality. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, sentencing the person to 2 years of actual imprisonment.
Case No. 369/5998/16-к dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor challenging the appellate court’s ruling in a criminal case against a person accused of illegal production, storage, or sale of excise goods. Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision, but from the text, it is evident that the prosecutor did not…Agreed with the decision of the appellate court and appealed it in cassation order. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the complaint, found grounds for its partial satisfaction. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court instance.
Case No. 539/1379/22 dated 12/12/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the crime belongs to the category of especially serious; 2) there are two aggravating circumstances – state of alcoholic intoxication and recidivism of crime; 3) the convicted person committed a new crime during the probation period; 4) human life is the highest social value and the imposed punishment corresponds to the gravity of the crime.
Case No. 371/569/21 dated 03/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of closing criminal proceedings by first and appellate instance courts due to allegedly missed pre-trial investigation terms. The court established that the indictment was sent to court on June 7, 2021, that is, within the pre-trial investigation period ending on June 11, 2021. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the period of parties familiarizing themselves with case materials is not included in the pre-trial investigation term, and the final moment of this term is the actual sending of the indictment to court. The Supreme Court revoked the decisions of lower instance courts on closing criminal proceedings and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 361/5334/18 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the medical institution made deficiencies in providing medical assistance to the patient, which is confirmed by forensic medical examinations. The court took into account that even when providing medical assistance in full volume, guaranteeing the patient’s life preservation was impossible due to the severe condition after the road traffic accident. The court also noted that compensation for moral damage had already been recovered from the road traffic accident perpetrator in favor of the parents.
Case No. 472/265/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that there was an oral agreement between the parties about apartment rental, the owner preliminarily (3 months in advance) warned the tenants about the need to vacate the housing, as it was needed for her own residence. The court took into account that the owner has no other housing, and the eviction of tenants is a proportionate intervention in their right to housing, as it is based on law and was predictable for them.
Case No. 711/82/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the fact of living together with the testator for five years before the inheritance opening. The provided evidence (witness testimonies, receipts, acts) was deemed insufficient by the court to confirm the existence of a common budget, common nutrition, participation in joint expenses, and other signs of family relations. The mere fact of long-term acquaintance and providing assistance to the deceased does not indicate the existence of mutual rights and obligations inherent to family members.
Case No. 352/2182/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the institution indeed reduced the number of groups from 11 to 8 due to low child attendance, which necessitated staff reduction. At the same time, the employer complied with all legislative requirements – preliminarily warned the employee about dismissal, conducted a comparison of labor productivity.Employees to determine the priority right to remain at work, checked the availability of vacant positions. The plaintiff’s long work experience (41 years) was not decisive, as productivity is primarily considered, which was lower for her compared to other employees.
Case No. 459/1344/15-ц dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the respondent filed an appeal within the appeal period, which began after the ruling on refusal to review the заочне (in absentia) decision. The appellate court mistakenly refused to open proceedings, considering the term missed. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appeal procedure is determined by the procedural rules in effect at the time of filing the appeal, and not at the time of the appealed decision.
Case No. 188/682/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court denied the claim, guided by the following arguments: 1) the plaintiff did not prove that the state knew about the threat of shelling and could have prevented it; 2) the injury was received in a temporarily occupied territory that Ukraine did not control at that time; 3) it was not proven that the criminal proceedings investigation was ineffective, the plaintiff only pointed to its duration but did not substantiate which specific procedural actions were not taken.
Case No. 229/2438/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person accused of organizing or maintaining places for illegal drug use (Part 1, Article 317 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Unfortunately, since only the operative part of the decision is provided, it is impossible to determine the arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. A full analysis requires the complete text of the court decision with descriptive and motivational parts. The Supreme Court denied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 521/1564/19 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal of the Odesa Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for crimes related to illegal circulation of precursors and narcotic drugs. The court analyzed the case materials and concluded that the convicted person’s actions do not constitute a crime under Part 2 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code (theft, appropriation, extortion of equipment intended for drug production). At the same time, the court confirmed the presence of a crime under Part 3 of Article 311 of the Criminal Code (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, or shipment of precursors). The court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code, which allows imposing a milder punishment than provided by law. Following the cassation appeal review, the Supreme Court partially modified previous court decisions – canceled the conviction under Article 313 of the Criminal Code but upheld the verdict under Article 311 of the Criminal Code with a sentence of 3 years of imprisonment without confiscation of property.
Case No. 759/12263/21 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appeal of the first instance court verdict and appellate ruling regarding conviction for attempted murder. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that: 1) knife strikes were inflicted to the neck – an area concentrating vital organs, and the convicted person could not control the blade’s penetration depth; 2) after inflicting the wound, the convicted person forced the victim to sit nearby and observed her bleeding out without providing assistance; 3) the victim’s and witnesses’ testimonies confirm the direct intent to kill.The first excerpt:
The convict’s version about self-injury of the victim was deemed unfounded. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, which sentenced the person to 8 years of imprisonment for attempted intentional murder.
The second excerpt:
In making its decision, the court was guided by the fact that a grandmother has a legal right to communicate with her granddaughter and participate in her upbringing, and that the strained relations between the child’s mother and grandmother cannot be grounds for restricting these rights. The court also took into account the conclusion of guardianship authorities, the child’s age, developmental characteristics, and the need to maintain daily routine. Importantly, the court deviated from previous practice regarding the mandatory existence of communication obstacles as a prerequisite for satisfying such a claim.
The third excerpt:
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of the Odesa Appellate Court’s verdict regarding the conviction for robbery committed repeatedly (Part 2, Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The Supreme Court reviewed the cassation complaint in criminal proceedings with the participation of the convict, his defense counsel, and the prosecutor. As this is the operative part, the full substantiation of the court’s position will be presented in the full text of the resolution, to be announced later. The court decided to dismiss the convict’s cassation complaint and leave the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
The fourth excerpt:
Subject of dispute – review of the court decision on newly discovered circumstances regarding debt collection under credit agreements from guarantors. The cassation instance court noted that the previous instance courts violated procedural law by reinstating PERSON_2’s term for filing an application to review the decision on newly discovered circumstances, although such a term is preclusive and cannot be renewed under any circumstances. According to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an application to review a decision on newly discovered circumstances may be filed no later than three years from the day the decision entered into legal force, and this term is not subject to renewal regardless of the reasons for its missed deadline. The Supreme Court canceled all challenged court decisions and referred the case to the first instance court to resolve the issue of opening proceedings on newly discovered circumstances.
The fifth excerpt:
Subject of dispute – release of the convict from punishment for storing narcotic substances without intent to sell due to the expiration of criminal liability limitation periods. The court was guided by the fact that from the moment of cannabis discovery in the convict (05/05/2020) until the verdict gained legal force (02/09/2024), more than 3 years had passed, which, according to paragraph 2, part 1, Article 49 of the Criminal Code, is grounds for exemption from criminal liability for a criminal offense. Lower instance courts did not take this circumstance into account when making decisions. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint and released the convict from punishment under Part 1, Article 309 of the Criminal Code, leaving the rest of the assigned punishments in force with a final term of 4 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
The sixth excerpt:
The court established that the appellate court made significant violations by considering the case without proper notification of the victim and not properly taking into account the severity of the committed crime when canceling additional punishment. The appellate court did not provide sufficient justification for not imposing additional punishment and did not consider the position of the victims who did not agree with…Here is the translation:
Case No. 187/510/24 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding conviction for violation of road traffic safety rules (Part 3, Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text it is evident that the Supreme Court reviewed the convict’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the Dnipro Appellate Court in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court left the Dnipro Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and rejected the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 155/581/20 dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to restore the time limit for appealing the verdict and returning the appellate appeal. The court was guided by the fact that the defense attorney filed the initial appellate appeal in a timely manner (within the 30-day period), albeit with a procedural violation – directly to the appellate court instead of the local court. After receiving notification of this violation, the defense attorney promptly (without unjustified delay) filed a repeated appeal through the local court. The Supreme Court considers that the refusal to restore the time limit was a manifestation of excessive formalism and disproportionately restricted the right to appellate appeal. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the issue of restoring the time limit for appellate appeal.
Case No. 759/8814/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the borrower is released from paying penalties for the period of COVID-19 quarantine according to paragraph 15 of the Final Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine; 2) inflation losses are not subject to recovery, as losses from hryvnia depreciation have already been compensated by pegging to the US dollar; 3) the plaintiff did not prove the fact of causing him moral suffering.
Case No. 761/23455/16 dated 12/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the legality of apartment inspection with the owner’s consent. In particular, the issue of the existence of rental relations between the owner and the tenant was not investigated, and it was not taken into account that the owner has the right of possession of property in accordance with the Civil Code. The appellate court formally referred to judicial practice without proper substantiation of its conclusions.
Case No. 175/5649/13-ц dated 11/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court incorrectly closed proceedings on the complaint of the Dnipro City Council. Since the disputed property is located on communal land, the city council as the landowner has the right to appeal decisions on recognizing ownership of an object built on this land. The appellate court should have considered the complaint on its merits, rather than closing the proceedings.
Case No. 146/1811/23 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding imposing actual imprisonment instead of release from serving punishment with probation for evading conscription during mobilization. The court was guided by the following: 1) in the context of Russian Federation’s armed aggression, evading conscription poses a significant public danger; 2) release from serving punishment with probation creates a negative impression of impunity in society during martial law; 3) lack of appropriate state response to such crimes may lead to an increase in their number and inabilityEnsure the defense of the state. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the appellate court, which imposed a punishment of 3 years of imprisonment with actual serving.
Case No. 161/13533/21 dated 12/12/2024
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court made significant procedural law violations, as it did not properly verify and refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the absence of crime provocation, and without proper justification, refused to re-examine part of the evidence. Moreover, the court did not provide proper assessment of the established judicial practice regarding the distinction between protection from provocation and denial of the crime’s occurrence.
Case No. 626/924/23 dated 11/12/2024
The first and appellate instance courts refused to satisfy the claim, believing that a person who, due to a mental disorder, did not realize their actions should not compensate for damages. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this is an incorrect interpretation of the law – the court may oblige such a person to compensate for damages fully or partially, taking into account the material situation of the victim and the person who caused the damage.
Case No. 635/2849/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute: appealing the court verdict regarding finding a person guilty of violating traffic safety rules that caused the victim’s death (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court was guided by the following main arguments: 1) it was proven that the driver exceeded the speed limit of 70 km/h, moving at a speed of 86 km/h; 2) video recording from the video recorder and other evidence obtained during the investigation are admissible, as the driver voluntarily provided access to them; 3) although the victim created a dangerous situation by crossing the road in an unauthorized place, the driver was obliged to take measures to avoid a collision by reducing speed. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate court, which sentenced the person to 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 3 years.
Case No. 761/18548/18 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict against former Berkut special unit employees, convicted of abuse of power, illegal obstruction of a rally, and official forgery during the events on Maidan on November 30, 2013. The court found the defense’s arguments about unproven guilt unfounded, as their guilt is confirmed by a set of evidence. The court also rejected arguments that the report is not an official document and recognized the imposed punishment as fair. At the same time, the court agreed with the victim’s representative regarding the unjustifiability of the appellate court’s reduction of moral damage compensation and exclusion of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Main Directorate of the National Police from the list of defendants in the claim. Based on the results of the review, the court left the verdict unchanged in terms of guilt and imposed punishment but canceled the appellate court’s decision to reduce the amount of moral damage compensation.
Case No. 240/929/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the law No. 1584-IX adopted in 2021, which established fixed pension sizes for Chornobyl victims, contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and does not ensure an adequate level of social protection. Therefore, the previous version of the law, which provided for pension payment in the amount of 8 minimum pensions for age for disabled persons of group II, should be applied.
Case No. 754/7141/23 dated 18/12Case No. 212/2988/20 dated 11/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the dispute between the Kyiv City Council and the state executive service regarding the lifting of seizure from immovable property should be considered under economic, rather than civil proceedings, since both parties are legal entities. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which established that such disputes involving legal entities belong to economic jurisdiction, regardless of the grounds for imposing seizure.
Case No. 1309/3314/12 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict and appellate ruling regarding the conviction of a person for robbery, banditry, illegal handling of weapons, and illegal actions with narcotic substances. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. From the available text, it is evident that the case was considered with the participation of a defense counsel and a prosecutor, observing the procedural rights of the participants, including the possibility of participating via video conference. The Supreme Court decided to leave the convict’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the challenged court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 756/1932/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the employer properly notified the employee about the upcoming reduction two months in advance; 2) the employee was regularly offered available vacant positions, which he refused; 3) suspension of the employment contract does not terminate labor relations and does not prohibit dismissal of an employee during staff reduction.
Case No. 227/3059/20 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: A private executor’s complaint against the actions of a state executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and seizure of funds in a case of collecting court fees. The court was guided by the fact that the private executor did not pay the court fee for filing an appellate complaint and did not eliminate the shortcomings of the complaint within the court-set timeframe. At the same time, the court noted that the private executor does not belong to the category of persons entitled to court fee exemptions, as they act not as a natural person, but as a subject of executing a court decision. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on returning the private executor’s appellate complaint without consideration due to non-payment of court fees.
Case No. 591/6556/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: Appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription during mobilization. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) refusal to defend the Motherland indicates an increased social danger of the act under martial law conditions; 2) the convict’s admission of guilt was formal, without real actions to rectify the consequences; 3) release from serving the sentence with probation would lead to achieving the criminal’s intended goal. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s verdict, which imposed a punishment of 3 years of imprisonment without release from serving the sentence.Suspended Sentence
Case No. 552/907/21 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court regarding the conviction of a person for misappropriation of someone else’s property (Part 1 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court reviewed the convict’s cassation appeal in full and found no grounds for its satisfaction.
The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court unchanged and denied satisfaction of the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 753/25744/21 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the borrower had outstanding loan obligations secured by an apartment mortgage and timely (within 3 months after the law came into force) submitted an application for restructuring. Additional documents were provided at the bank’s request and are not considered a violation of the primary application submission deadline. Therefore, the bank’s refusal to restructure was unlawful.
Case No. 495/5491/20 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – crediting the period of pre-trial detention when sentencing for a new crime. The court was guided by the fact that the period of detention from 06.11.2018 to 26.05.2020 had already been credited to the convict under a previous verdict of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa. Therefore, this same period cannot be credited again when sentencing for a new crime, as this contradicts the requirements of Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Appellate Court correctly excluded this crediting from the first instance verdict.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, which excluded repeated crediting of the pre-trial detention period.
Case No. 930/859/22 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of electronic auctions for the sale of property complex parts belonging to LLC “Ubipartner Development”. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) a share in the right of joint partial ownership is an independent object of civil rights and can be sold through electronic auctions without physical allocation; 2) information in the application and protocol about the property met legislative requirements; 3) absence of information about the land plot is not a violation, as it belongs to the city council, and the plaintiff is merely a tenant. The Supreme Court satisfied the property buyer’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the first instance court’s decision to refuse invalidation of the auction.
Case No. 401/129/24 dated 11/12/2024
The court noted that although the plaintiffs have the status of individual entrepreneurs, in these legal relations they act as individuals, as they acquired rights to the land plot in this status. For determining jurisdiction, it is important not the mere fact of having entrepreneur status, but whether the land plot is used for business activities. The case materials lack evidence of the plot’s use for commercial purposes.
Case No. 201/14776/23 dated 27/11/2024
The appellate instance court made significant violations by not taking measures to comprehensively clarify the case circumstances, as required by separate proceedings. In particular, the court did not request additional evidence regarding the deceased serviceman’s and his son’s income, although it had the right to do so on its own initiative. The court also incorrectly divided the applicant’s claims into two separate facts – belonging to family members and being dependent.
Here is the translation of the legal texts from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 552/2490/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the following: 1) the legal fact that the applicant requests to establish (place of birth) likely occurred in the territory of a foreign state and this event did not take place in Ukraine; 2) the special proceedings case must concern the personal status of a Ukrainian citizen, but the applicant has been a citizen of Israel since August 2017; 3) according to the Law of Ukraine “On International Private Law”, such a claim cannot be subject to consideration in a court on the territory of Ukraine.
Case No. 199/5456/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the mother voluntarily renounced parental rights, and the father effectively withdrew from the child’s upbringing from the moment of birth, never communicating with the child and providing no financial support. The court took into account that the child was forced to independently leave the combat zone, and the father did not even show interest in the child’s further fate. The court also noted that the father’s mere objection to the termination of rights does not indicate his real interest in the child, especially considering that he expressed doubts about his paternity.
Case No. 552/4770/19 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that amendments to the List of Narcotic Drugs, introduced by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 653 dated 24.05.2024, which transferred cannabis from especially dangerous narcotic drugs to narcotic drugs with limited circulation, cannot be considered changes to the criminal law. The court referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, according to which changes to by-laws do not alter the criminal law and do not have retroactive effect. The court also decided to deviate from the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which allowed the application of such changes as grounds for mitigating responsibility.
Case No. 521/504/21 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision, which left unchanged the verdict on conditional release for a person convicted of human trafficking. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person was previously not convicted, sincerely repented, admitted guilt, the victims had no claims against her and asked not to impose actual imprisonment. The court also took into account the positive characteristics of the accused, her age, health condition, and the fact that she committed the crime due to difficult financial circumstances. Importantly, even the prosecutor in the court of first instance requested conditional release. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and confirmed the legitimacy of the conditional release of the convicted person.
Case No. 404/5456/17 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal against the appellate court’s verdict in a criminal case regarding the accusation of a person for committing a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (receiving an illegal benefit by an official). Unfortunately, since this is only the operative part of the resolution, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court was guided by when making the decision, as they are contained in the full text of the resolution, which has not yet been announced. The Supreme Court decided to leave the defender’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 333/4863/23 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal against the court’s verdict regarding…
(Note: The last case appears to be incomplete in the original text)Condemnation of a Person for Theft of Chocolate and Headphones with a Total Value Less Than 2,000 UAH during Martial Law
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that after the Law No. 3886-IX of 18.07.2024 came into force, the threshold between administrative and criminal liability for theft was changed – from 0.2 to 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (2,684.10 UAH in 2023). Since the value of the stolen items was less than this amount, and the new law has retroactive effect, the person’s act ceased to be criminally punishable and became an administrative offense.
The Supreme Court canceled the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling, closed the criminal proceedings due to decriminalization of the act, and ordered the release of the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 751/10942/15-k dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for illegal weapons handling, committed in complicity. The cassation instance court reviewed the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint. Since only the operative part of the document is provided, the specific arguments of the court are not indicated, but the court found that the previous court decisions were legal and well-founded.
The Supreme Court left the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 128/89/20 dated 09/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint as filed after the deadline.
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, if the end of the procedural term falls on a weekend, the last day of this term is considered the next working day. Since the 30-day term for appellate review expired on a weekend on June 30, 2024, the last day for filing an appellate complaint is legally considered July 1, 2024. Therefore, the appellate court incorrectly returned the defense lawyer’s complaint as filed after the deadline.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and appointed a new review in the appellate instance.
Case No. 263/14009/21 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the prosecutor’s appellate complaint in criminal proceedings regarding illegal storage of narcotic substances.
Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that the prosecutor disagreed with the return of his appellate complaint against the first instance court’s verdict and challenged this decision in cassation.
The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 463/10095/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of exemption from criminal liability for a person who illegally acquired and stored psychotropic substances based on voluntary referral to a medical institution.
The cassation instance court indicated that to be exempted from liability under Part 4 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code, two facts must be established: 1) voluntary referral to a medical institution before the first instance court’s verdict; 2) presence of an established ‘drug addiction’ diagnosis based on medical examination. The appellate court did not properly verify these circumstances, as the accused referred to the clinic after the verdict was issued, and the ‘drug addiction’ diagnosis was not established at all.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling…Release of a person from criminal liability and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 179/687/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the orders of the State Geocadaster on granting land plots to third parties and cancellation of property registration for these plots. The court was guided by the fact that after the creation of a peasant (farmer) farm, the right of permanent land use transfers from the founder to the farm itself as a legal entity. Therefore, after the founder’s death, their heirs do not acquire the right to this land plot, as it belongs to the farm. Accordingly, the founder’s heir does not have the right to challenge the disposal of the land plot – only the farm itself has such a right. The Supreme Court denied the claim, as the plaintiff, as the heir of the farm founder, did not prove a violation of her specific rights regarding the disputed land plots.
Case No. 554/5380/20 dated 10/12/2024
The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation by law enforcement agencies, as the police actions were passive and only documented the already existing criminal activity. The court also found the arguments about the impossibility of identifying the defendant in the video and about his absence at the crime scene unsubstantiated, as these facts are refuted by the totality of collected evidence.
Case No. 712/7643/20 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that the defendant built a garage 4.6 m from the plaintiff’s house instead of the required 8 m, which violates fire safety requirements. The construction also led to excessive shading of a room in the plaintiff’s house. The defendant repeatedly received instructions from controlling bodies to eliminate violations but did not comply.
Case No. 493/1020/20 dated 11/12/2024
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court made procedural violations by not resolving the issue of court fee distribution and expert examination costs after partial satisfaction of the claims. Moreover, the appellate court did not consider the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the time limit for submitting evidence regarding court expenses, which is a violation of their procedural rights.
Case No. 932/4119/22 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not apply to the State Labor Service with a request to appoint a repeated special investigation, as provided by law. Additionally, the court noted that the commission has the exclusive competence to determine whether an accident is related to production, and such a fact cannot be established by the court. The court can only verify the legality of the investigation procedure.
Case No. 307/1735/22 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding violation of traffic safety rules. The court did not provide arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later. From the available text, one can only see that the case concerns the accusation of a person under part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that caused serious consequences). The Supreme Court denied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and left the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court unchanged.
<a href=”https://reyestr.court.gov.uaCase No. 155/581/20 dated 16/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint in criminal proceedings. The court of cassation instance reviewed the defender’s complaint against the procedural decision of the appellate court and concluded that a new review of the case in the appellate instance is necessary. Unfortunately, since this is only the operative part, the specific motives for such a decision are not provided in the document. However, it can be assumed that the appellate court made significant violations of procedural law when returning the appellate complaint. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation complaint, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 587/3259/23 dated 12/12/2024
The court took into account that the convicted person systematically transmitted data about the location of Ukrainian military and equipment in Sumy region via Telegram, and also spread materials justifying Russian aggression through the ‘Odnoklassniki’ network. The court did not agree with the defense’s arguments that marking ‘classes’ is not disseminating information, as it automatically places publications in friends’ news feeds. The court also rejected references to the ECHR practice in the case ‘Melike v. Turkey’, as it concerns labor relations.
Case No. 638/12248/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – claiming non-residential basement premises with a total area of 79.8 sq.m from illegal possession and cancellation of state property registration. The court established that the disputed property belonged to the territorial community of Kharkiv and was alienated from its possession against its will. The first acquirer (PERSON_1) registered ownership based on a technical passport and a certificate, which are not title-establishing documents. Subsequent acquirers (PERSON_2 and PERSON_3) when purchasing the property had the opportunity to verify the legality of the previous owner’s acquisition grounds but did not exercise due diligence. The court satisfied the claim for property recovery in favor of the territorial community but refused the requirements to cancel property registration, as the decision on property recovery is sufficient grounds for restoring the plaintiff’s ownership.
Case No. 757/1957/23-c dated 02/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) Ukrainian legislation lacks a special law regulating the procedure for compensation of damage caused by a terrorist act; 2) the plaintiff did not prove that the state knew about the possibility of shelling and could, but did not take measures to prevent it; 3) the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the death was not proven.
Case No. 404/6368/21 dated 04/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – termination of the car purchase and sale agreement and return of paid funds due to identified defects in the gear shift mechanism. The court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff did not provide evidence of a significant defect in the car that would make its use impossible; 2) according to the work completion certificate dated 03.09.2021, the car can be operated after the repair; 3) the parties agreed in the contract on a warranty repair period of up to 60 days in the absence of spare parts, which was not violated by the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions to reject the claim, as the existence of a significant defect as a basis for contract termination was not proven.Case No. 748/55/23 dated 16/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the disputed land plot is located within the 100-meter coastal protective strip of the Richyshche River, which is a tributary of the Dnipro River, and in accordance with the legislation, belongs to water fund lands. Such lands cannot be transferred to private ownership, and therefore their privatization was illegal. The court also took into account that the interference with the defendant’s property rights is justified given the public interest in protecting water bodies.
Case No. 466/4660/20 dated 11/12/2024
The court established that the bank did not provide evidence of proper sending and receipt of a written demand by the mortgagor to remedy violations and warning about foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage. The case materials lack documents confirming the fact of sending a notification to the plaintiff and the completion of the 30-day period from the moment of its receipt, which is a mandatory condition for out-of-court foreclosure.
Case No. 178/976/21 dated 17/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the three-year statute of limitations, as the right to sue arose in 1997 after the mother’s death, when he could have learned about the violation of his rights and appealed to the relevant authorities. The court also noted that establishing the fact of family relations does not create inheritance rights for the plaintiff due to the missed statute of limitations, therefore such a fact has no legal significance.
Case No. 240/1983/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that after the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provision on determining pension sizes by the Cabinet of Ministers, the new law No. 1584-IX established lower pension amounts than previously provided. Since this violates the right to an adequate level of social protection, the court decided to apply the previous version of the law, which provided for pension payment in the amount of 6 minimum pensions for age for disabled persons of group III.
Case No. 505/1346/21 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging by the prosecutor the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in a case of traffic safety rules violation. The court took into account that the case concerns a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. When considering the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, the court drew attention to the grounds for releasing the accused from criminal liability due to the expiration of limitation periods in accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code. The court also resolved the issue of procedural expenses for expert examinations, attributing them to the state account. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and released the accused from criminal liability with the closure of criminal proceedings.
Case No. 522/2736/16-ц dated 11/12/2024
The cassation instance court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly closed the proceedings on the complaint of PERSON_3, since the court’s decision of the first instance on recognizing ownership of an unfinished construction object concerns the rights and interests of PERSON_3 as a shareholder of the Housing Construction Cooperative “Metalurg”. The appellate court did not take into account that a previous court decision had established the illegality of PERSON_3’s loss of share and land plot on which the disputed object is located.Case No. 569/2642/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court noted that establishing such a legal fact separately, without simultaneously filing substantive claims (for example, about property division), is inadmissible. In litigation cases, the fact of cohabitation without marriage registration belongs to the subject of proof and must be established when considering the main claims. Moreover, the plaintiff has already filed a separate lawsuit for division of joint property, therefore establishing the fact of cohabitation for prejudicial purposes in another dispute is impermissible.
Case No. 163/2670/21 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict against a woman who organized an assassination attempt on her former husband on order. The court established that the convicted person voluntarily approached an intermediary requesting to find an executor for the murder, provided information about the victim, showed his place of residence, and transferred an advance payment. The executor informed law enforcement agencies, and a murder imitation was conducted. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation, since the initiative came from the convicted herself, and law enforcement officers merely passively documented her actions. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance and appellate court verdict, sentencing the woman to 6 years of imprisonment for organizing an assassination attempt on order.
Case No. 307/1735/22 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to release a truck driver from serving punishment with probation, who caused a cyclist’s death. The court considered several key factors in making the decision: the defendant’s negligent form of guilt, positive characteristics and absence of previous violations, full compensation of damage to the victim, and the victim’s opinion who requested not to deprive the defendant of freedom. The court also took into account that deprivation of the right to drive vehicles would prevent the defendant from supporting his family and conducting entrepreneurial activities. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to release the defendant from serving punishment with probation, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 405/1050/24 dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling returning an appellate complaint against the first instance court’s decision refusing to close criminal proceedings. The court was guided by the fact that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, only a ruling on closing criminal proceedings can be appealed, but not a ruling refusing to close it. Moreover, the appellant did not have procedural status in this criminal proceedings, as no suspicion had been communicated to him. Therefore, the appellate court rightfully returned the appellate complaint as filed by a person without the right to such appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling returning the appellate complaint and left the cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 639/2579/22 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the Kharkiv Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for intentional destruction or damage of property (Part 2, Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later. From the available text, it is evident that the case was considered in cassation order based on the convicted person’s defender’s complaint. The Supreme Court decided to leave the Kharkiv Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged.
