Case No. 757/7845/19-k dated 19/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal to a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings. The court was guided by the fact that the applicant PERSON_5 did not have the right to file an appeal against the verdict regarding other persons, as this verdict did not directly concern his rights and interests. Although a person with the same last name was mentioned in the verdict, but without specific identifying data, this does not provide grounds to consider that the decision affects the applicant’s rights. Moreover, the circumstances established in the proceedings regarding some persons do not have prejudicial significance for the cases of other persons. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal and denied satisfaction of the applicant’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 903/1251/23 (903/187/24) dated 03/12/2024
The court declared the contract invalid as it is a fraudulent transaction aimed at abusing the right to evade obligations to creditors. The court established that the law firm did not prove the reality of providing services in the claimed volume, and the documents do not meet the credibility criterion. Additionally, the law firm simultaneously represented the interests of other persons against the debtor, which raises doubts about the reality of the legal relationship.
Case No. 910/17027/23 dated 11/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) legal assistance expenses must be real, justified, and reasonable; 2) the Homeowners Association did not substantiate the need to engage three lawyers and the significant excess of the previously stated cost of UAH 60,000; 3) the case did not require performing a significant volume of additional legal work at the cassation stage, as the Homeowners Association’s legal position remained unchanged.
Case No. 920/528/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recognition of the obligation as terminated by performance in the case between LLC ‘YE Energy’ and JSC ‘Gas Distribution System Operator ‘Sumygas’. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the court decision (only the introductory and operative parts), it is impossible to establish the main arguments of the court, as the motivational part of the decision, where legal positions and court reasoning are usually presented, is absent. The court decided to leave LLC ‘YE Energy’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/10699/21 dated 17/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) although the director formally did not have the authority to conclude a contract without the owner’s consent for an amount exceeding UAH 1 million, there is a photocopy of the owner’s decision granting such consent in the case materials; 2) the existence of a previously issued power of attorney for alienation of the enterprise indicates the owner’s intention to sell the property complex; 3) the plaintiff received and used funds under the contract, and the new owners of the enterprise had no claims to the contract.
Case No. 918/248/24 dated 10/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff complied with all procedural terms and requirements for submitting evidence of expenses incurred; 2) the provided documents (legal assistance agreement, additional agreement, report, and service acceptance certificate) confirm the reality of service provision and its cost; 3) the defendant did not file a motion to reduce the amount of court expenses, and the court does not have the right to independently interfere in the contractual relations between the lawyer and the client regarding the fee amount.Case No. 991/13852/24 dated 18/12/2024
Main arguments of the court: The court approved the plea bargain agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant because: 1) the agreement meets the requirements of criminal procedural legislation; 2) the defendant voluntarily admitted guilt and agreed to cooperate with the investigation to expose other persons; 3) the terms of the agreement provide compensation to the state through the transfer of equipment to military units and transfer of funds to support educational institutions; 4) the agreed punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the person of the defendant.
Case No. 903/283/24 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery from LLC “Kazkova Oselia” in favor of Lutsk City Council of debt in the amount of 1,580,634.02 UAH. The court did not provide arguments in the text of the resolution regarding the adopted decision, as this is the operative part, which only indicates the final result of the cassation complaint review. To understand the court’s motives, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the court decision, which contains the motivational part. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of LLC “Kazkova Oselia” without satisfaction and left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim.
Case No. 924/1351/20 (924/378/24) dated 03/12/2024
The court, when making a decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) legal assistance expenses of 40,000 UAH correspond to the criteria of reality, necessity, and reasonableness, given the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided; 2) expenses for conducting an examination in the amount of 18,000 UAH are subject to reimbursement, as the expert’s conclusion was taken into account by the court as evidence when making a decision; 3) the plaintiff complied with the procedural terms for submitting evidence of expenses.
Case No. 910/3368/24 dated 26/11/2024
The court found that the rehabilitation plan contains significant shortcomings: there are no clear terms for satisfying creditors’ claims, as payments are tied to an undefined event (receiving compensation for damages from the Russian Federation); creditors are unreasonably divided into those whose claims are included in the rehabilitation plan and those whose claims are to be repaid in a different way. Such conditions of the rehabilitation plan contradict the requirements of the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 922/741/24 dated 10/12/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the buyer’s obligation to pay for the property arises from the moment of its acceptance by law and does not depend on the presence of an account or bank details. The court noted that the absence of clear provisions in the contract regarding the method of payment does not exempt the buyer from the obligation to make payment, and the seller’s failure to provide details is not a basis for exemption from liability for payment delay.
Case No. 917/1951/19 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of debt for natural gas balancing services in the amount of over 20 million UAH, including the principal debt, penalty, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
Main arguments of the court: 1) The court found that the plaintiff incorrectly applied the increased coefficient of 1.2 when calculating the cost of balancing services, as the imbalance volume was less than 5% of the total gas volume. 2) Since part of the payment was made from state subventions through a special settlement mechanism, no penalties can be charged on this part. 3) The court took into account that the procedure for settlements using subventions has changed since 2018, but this does not affect the special nature of such payments.
Court decision: The claim was partially satisfied – only the principal debt was recovered.
