Case No. 915/1565/21 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of debt under a natural gas transportation agreement in the amount of approximately 8.9 million UAH, including principal debt, penalty, and other charges. The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that the defendant indeed violated the contract terms regarding payment for gas transportation services, which is confirmed by the acts of services rendered. At the same time, the court took into account the defendant’s difficult financial situation due to the suspension of its gas distribution license, the lack of evidence of damages caused to the plaintiff, and that the negative consequences for the plaintiff have already been compensated by collecting 3% per annum and inflationary losses. Based on the results of the case, the court partially satisfied the claim – recovered the principal debt in full (8.1 million UAH), but reduced the penalty by 50% (to 266.9 thousand UAH), and also collected inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
Case No. 910/12121/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: recovery of debt from the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for contracts on organizing railway transportation of military cargo. The court’s main arguments: 1) The fact of Ukrzaliznytsia providing cargo transportation services, including humanitarian aid, is confirmed by transportation documents signed by military unit representatives. 2) After military units receive humanitarian cargo, this property acquires the status of military property. 3) The provisions of CMU Resolution No. 379 regarding free transportation of humanitarian cargo are not applicable, as no special agreement for transporting humanitarian cargo was concluded between the parties. Court decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision to recover debt in favor of Ukrzaliznytsia from the Ministry of Defense in the amount of almost 30 million UAH.
Case No. 910/9933/20 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the previous resolution did not resolve the issue of court expenses distribution. Since LLC “UZLISSIA’s” cassation complaint was partially satisfied and the claim was denied, court expenses for filing appellate and cassation complaints totaling 401,702.26 UAH should be reimbursed from the plaintiff – the Lviv Region Prosecutor’s Office.
Case No. 924/101/24 dated 18/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that at the time of case consideration, another dispute between the parties (Case No. 924/318/23) had been finally resolved, which established the absence of legal grounds for the church’s use by the religious organization – the usage agreement was not notarized, and the protection agreement was concluded before the organization’s registration as a legal entity. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that there was no violation of the plaintiff’s rights by the reserve’s actions in installing a lock.
Case No. 140/23482/23 dated 18/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that limiting the upper limit of pension indexation to 1,500 UAH was established by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 dated 24.02.2023 to balance needs and protect as many citizens as possible through the indexation tool, especially those with very low pensions. The court also took into account that under martial law, expenditures are primarily directed to national security and defense. Moreover, the Government has been legally empowered to determine the amount, conditions, and procedure for pension indexation.Case No. 640/11298/20 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the restriction on benefit payment only within two years after the initial disability determination contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine, which is confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s Decision. The court also took into account that the plaintiff’s initial disability determination after determining the degree of work capacity loss is not a basis for refusing benefit assignment.
Case No. 280/1155/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court noted that to submit a declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship, a person must first take active steps to terminate the previous citizenship – apply to the authorized RF bodies with a corresponding application and receive a refusal or no response within the established timeframe. Only after this can a declaration of renunciation be submitted. Exceptions are persons falling under Law No. 1941-IX on simplified citizenship acquisition by certain categories of persons.
Case No. 826/10381/15 dated 17/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the tax authority did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s coordinated actions with unscrupulous taxpayers to illegally obtain tax benefits. The mere presence or absence of individual documents or errors in their preparation is not grounds for conclusions about the absence of a business transaction if other data shows that the actual movement of assets took place. The contracts, specifications, expense invoices, and other documents in the case confirm the reality of business transactions.
Case No. 480/12760/23 dated 18/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is collecting a tax debt from LLC “Bakhmachgazbudservice” for 1.5 million UAH. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the first instance court decision was properly delivered to the defendant’s electronic cabinet on June 3, 2024, confirmed by a delivery certificate; 2) missing the appeal deadline occurred due to improper organization of the enterprise’s work, which is a subjective reason; 3) references to building damage from shelling cannot be taken into account, as this occurred after the appeal deadline had expired. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings due to missing the appeal deadline without valid reasons.
Case No. 320/15639/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the statute of limitations for collecting tax debt had not expired, as its course was suspended during the quarantine and martial law periods according to legislative changes. The court thoroughly analyzed the norms regarding suspension of limitation periods and rejected the defendant’s arguments that the suspension of terms applied only to certain case categories. The court also found no grounds to deviate from the Supreme Court’s previous practice on this matter.
Case No. 816/1360/18 dated 18/12/2024
The court recognized that the expenses for organizing a conference in Germany were justified and related to the company’s economic activity because: 1) the company is an official Bayer dealer and sells their products; 2) the trip was of a business nature and included exhibition visits and training; 3) after the trip, Bayer product sales significantly increased, bringing substantial profit to the company. The court also decided that these expenses cannot be considered additional benefits for employees, as they had a business purpose.Translation:
Case No. 907/780/21 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the decision of the general meeting of participants of TDV “Perechyn Forestry Chemical Plant” regarding the approval of a new version of the statute. Main arguments of the court: 1) At the time of the disputed general meeting on 02/10/2018, the plaintiffs were not members of the company, as they acquired corporate rights only on 09/10/2018 after state registration of changes; 2) Non-compliance with legal requirements for convening and conducting the meeting cannot violate the rights of persons who were not members of the company at the time of their conduct; 3) The absence of violated rights or legitimate interests of the plaintiffs is an independent basis for dismissing the claim. Court decision: Claim rejected due to the absence of violated rights and interests of the plaintiffs in the disputed legal relations, as they were not members of the company at the time of the meeting.
Case No. 910/15208/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff (a state-owned enterprise) is simultaneously in three procedures – bankruptcy, privatization, and termination by the owner’s decision. In this case, the privatization procedure takes precedence over other property disposal procedures. The Fund’s actions to cancel the enterprise termination procedure are aimed not at managing the debtor’s property, but at eliminating discrepancies in choosing the method of selling state property. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove a violation of its rights by the contested order.
Case No. 910/15043/21 (910/11191/23) dated 10/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – invalidation of transactions for alienation of the debtor’s real estate and recovery of this property from illegal possession within the bankruptcy case. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) property alienation occurred at a significantly undervalued price during a period of significant debt to creditors; 2) there is no evidence of payment by the buyer; 3) such actions by the debtor led to the impossibility of satisfying creditors’ claims at the expense of this property. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision to invalidate the property sale and purchase agreement and recover it in favor of the debtor.
Case No. 922/719/16 dated 17/12/2024
The cassation instance court noted that the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service as a creditor in the bankruptcy case does not have the right to appeal the first instance court’s decision, as this decision did not resolve issues of rights and obligations of the tax authority. The complainant’s reference to the potential possibility of receiving funds from property sale was recognized by the court as merely an assumption that does not create a legal connection to the case.
Case No. 925/1014/22 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for supplied natural gas and penalty sanctions. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant improperly fulfilled obligations for gas payment; 2) penalty sanctions have a compensatory, not punitive nature and should not be an excessive burden for the debtor; 3) the court has discretionary powers to reduce penalty sanctions, taking into account specific case circumstances and principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision on partial satisfaction of the claim and reduction of the penalty to 5.57 million hryvnias (by 95%).
Case No. 911/1689/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court when making a decision was guided…The text appears to be incomplete, and the last paragraph is cut off. I’ll translate the complete parts of the text:
Regarding Case No. 914/866/24 dated 19/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the appellant did not provide proper evidence of court fee payment within the established timeframe. The description of enclosure in the registered letter provided by the complainant did not meet the requirements of Postal Communication Rules, as it did not contain the postal item number and other mandatory details. Additionally, the fact of court fee crediting to the appellate court was not proven.
Regarding Case No. 910/235/24 dated 19/12/2024:
The subject of the dispute is the obligation of Bank Sich to perform certain actions at the request of LLC ‘Ukrainian Gas Transportation System Operator’. The court reviewed the cassation complaint on two grounds provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Under the first ground, the court closed the cassation proceedings, and under the second ground, denied satisfaction of the complaint. The court found no grounds for canceling or modifying previous court decisions. As a result, the Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instances unchanged.
Regarding Case No. 910/15808/19 dated 16/12/2024:
The court recognized that the reasons for missing the deadline were not valid, as the shareholder had legal opportunities to timely learn about the court process and file an appeal. Lack of awareness about the court decision was caused by the shareholder’s passive behavior, not objective obstacles. The court also considered that repeated submission of the same unfounded arguments indicates deliberate non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Regarding Case No. 808/3585/15 dated 18/12/2024:
The court noted that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish: 1) whether personal income tax (PIT) was paid simultaneously with or after salary payment; 2) compare the amounts of paid income and PIT for the verified period; 3) analyze payment orders. The court explained that penalties under Article 127 of the Tax Code are applied only if PIT is paid after income disbursement or not paid at all, and under Article 126 of the Tax Code – if the tax is paid with salary but with a delay.
Regarding Case No. 200/3560/23 dated 19/12/2024:
The subject of the dispute is recovering average earnings for the period of delayed payment to a serviceman upon dismissal. The court noted that the period of recovering average earnings is divided into two parts: before July 19, 2022 (when the old version of the Labor Code without payment period restrictions was in effect) and after (when a 6-month payment limitation was introduced). Previous instance courts incorrectly applied only the new version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and incorrectly determined the amount to be recovered, not taking into account this period division. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to correctly determine the average earnings amount for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
The last paragraph about the semi-trailer is incomplete and cannot be translated.The court noted that the vehicle is a truck train and is a commercial vehicle, the maintenance costs of which cannot be included in the entrepreneur’s expenses according to the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the primary documents (travel sheets) and the procedure for maintaining the entrepreneur’s income and expense book were not properly investigated.
Case No. 22/20b/2011 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the liquidation procedure lasted excessively long – 13 years instead of the 12 months provided by law; 2) for a long time, the liquidation was not actually carried out due to the absence of a liquidator and the passive behavior of creditors; 3) all attempts by the court to appoint a new liquidator were unsuccessful. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.
Case No. 914/1389/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute: joint recovery of damages in the amount of 2.78 million hryvnias caused to the bank as a result of dismantling non-residential premises during the execution of a court decision to demolish an emergency building. Main arguments of the court: The Court of Appeal made significant procedural law violations by making contradictory conclusions – on the one hand, establishing the bank’s ownership of premises in the dismantled building, and on the other hand, indicating that the bank did not prove the fact of destruction of its property. The court also did not provide a proper assessment of evidence regarding the amount of damages and did not investigate the issue of guilt of each defendant. To correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish the presence of all elements of the offense – damage, unlawful behavior, causal relationship, and guilt for each defendant. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the resolution of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/10982/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court noted that the appellate instance did not properly investigate the circumstances of unauthorized construction on the land plot and did not establish key facts regarding the allocation of the plot, changes in the building’s dimensions, and the acquisition of ownership by the defendants. The court also incorrectly applied the statute of limitations and did not take into account that a negatory claim can be filed throughout the entire period of the violation.
Case No. 360/1325/23 dated 19/12/2024
The Court of Appeal erroneously believed that the appeal period should be calculated from the moment the decision was received by the plaintiff-serviceman, although his interests were represented by a lawyer. The Supreme Court noted that a copy of the decision should have been sent to the lawyer, and only after its receipt by the representative does the appeal period begin. Since a copy of the decision was not sent to the lawyer, the conclusion about missing the appeal period is premature.
Case No. 240/1119/24 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine formally fulfilled the decision of the Constitutional Court of 07.04.2021 by adopting a new law on Chornobyl pensioners’ pension sizes, the pension sizes established by this law are significantly lower than previously guaranteed. This violates the constitutional rights of those affected by the Chornobyl disaster to social protection and compensation for damage. Therefore, the previous version of the law, which provided for a pension payment of 6 minimum old-age pensions, should be applied.
Case No. 812/994/16 dated 17/12/2024The court was guided by the fact that a prosecutor can represent the interests of the state only in two exceptional cases: when the relevant authority does not provide protection or provides it improperly, or when such authority is absent. In this case, the tax inspection had full authority to independently apply to the court regarding tax debt collection, and it was not proven that it could not do so properly. A prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject of court appeal and replace the appropriate authority that can and should independently protect the state’s interests.
Case No. 380/23192/24 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute concerns challenging the results of a competition for the position of director of Lyceum No. 6 of the Lviv City Council and the order on appointing the competition winner. The court established that the key issue is the availability of powers of the Lviv City Council Education Department to conduct the competition and approve its regulations. By law, such powers are held by the educational institution’s founder (Lviv City Council) or an authorized body. Previous instance courts did not investigate whether the city council delegated these powers to the Education Department, limiting themselves to references to norms that do not contain such powers. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decisions and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to establish all important case circumstances.
Case No. 440/4414/18 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging tax notifications-decisions on reducing negative value of corporate income tax and VAT following a documentary scheduled inspection. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) business transactions with LLC ‘Alpha Promin’ and LLC ‘Intercityitorg’ were real, as contractors had necessary resources for conducting activities; 2) operations with LLC ‘Myrkom’ and Farm ‘Krokos’ were recognized as unreal due to lack of material and labor resources; 3) the tax authority violated the 1095-day statute of limitations when checking operations with LLC ‘Myrkom’ and Farm ‘Krokos’ for 2015. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the taxpayer’s claim – canceled the tax notification-decision regarding VAT negative value reduction due to statute of limitations violation, but maintained the decision on corporate income tax.
Case No. 380/15428/22 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the conclusion of state sanitary-epidemiological expertise, which allowed reduction of the sanitary protection zone for a pig farm from 500m to 250m. The cassation instance court established that previous instance courts’ decisions on canceling the sanitary expertise conclusion affect the rights of landowners located within the sanitary protection zone who were not involved in the case. In particular, increasing the sanitary protection zone to 500 meters limits the possibility of using these plots for residential development. The court also noted that during a new review, it is necessary to verify compliance with lawsuit filing deadlines. The Supreme Court canceled previous instance courts’ decisions and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court to involve all interested parties and fully clarify case circumstances.
Case No. 909/107/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the lease agreement’s validity period ended on 31.12.2023, the contract was not subject to automatic extension, and the lessor properly notified the lessee about the lack of intention to continue contractual relations. Meanwhile, the lessee did not return the premises and did not pay rent.The impossibility of using the premises due to the conclusion of a contract with another person was not confirmed by evidence.
Case No. 444/1011/20 dated 02/10/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the fact that the disputed land plot is located between the state border line and the line of border engineering structures, i.e., within the border strip. According to the legislation, such lands can exclusively be in state ownership and be granted for permanent use to military units of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the defendant company, when purchasing the plot, had the opportunity to learn about the special status of this land.
Case No. 917/1072/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff PERSON_1 was properly notified about the meeting but did not exercise their right to participate personally or through a representative; 2) the plaintiff PERSON_2 was not a company member at the time of the meeting convocation, therefore, they did not need to be notified; 3) the meeting decisions did not violate the law’s requirements regarding unanimous voting on certain issues.
Case No. 910/19114/19 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of the agreement for the acquisition of PrivatBank shares and the acceptance-transfer act, concluded during the bank’s nationalization.
Main court arguments: 1) The disputed contract was concluded within the special procedure of removing an insolvent bank from the market (bail-in) with state participation as an investor. 2) According to the law, after selling bank shares to the state, previous owners cannot demand the return of shares or compensation for damages from the investor. 3) The only effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights may be monetary compensation, not declaring the contract invalid.
Court decision: The cassation complaint was left unsatisfied, and the decisions of previous instance courts on closing the proceedings remain unchanged, as the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protecting their rights.
Case No. 910/20091/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant has an obligation to make full payment for electricity supplied at the “green” tariff, despite martial law. Orders of the Ministry of Energy No. 140 and No. 206 do not exempt them from this obligation but only regulate the procedure for advance payments. At the same time, the court found it necessary to verify the correctness of calculating inflation losses and 3% per annum, considering the timing of obligations.
Case No. 922/1248/24 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant indeed violated the work completion terms but, considering the absence of intent and the importance of preserving their economic activity, decided to reduce the penalty amount by 90%. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about force majeure due to martial law, as the contract was concluded during the war, and the parties were aware of this.
Case No. 910/6337/23 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute: collection of penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses from NEC “Ukrenergo” for delayed payment of electricity under the balancing market participation agreement.
Main court arguments: 1) The existence of an account with a special usage mode does not exclude liability for monetary obligation delay, as the defendant could deposit funds from other accounts; 2) NCREP Resolution No. 332 provides for suspension of accrual and collection…Regarding the imposition of penalty sanctions during the martial law period, the claims for penalty recovery are premature; 3) Claims for recovery of 3% per annum and inflationary losses are substantiated, as these are not penalty sanctions. Court Decision: NEC “Ukrenergo’s” cassation complaint was partially satisfied – the decision was canceled in terms of penalty recovery and sent for a new review, in the rest (regarding recovery of 3% per annum and inflationary losses) the decision was left unchanged.
Case No. 904/5705/23 dated 19/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns challenging the court ruling on refusal to accept a statement about increasing the claims. The court was guided by the fact that the ruling on refusal to accept a statement about increasing claims is not included in the list of rulings that can be challenged separately from the court decision according to Article 255 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Moreover, such a ruling does not impede further proceedings in the case, and the applicants can include their objections in the appellate complaint on the merits of the dispute or file a new claim. The court also considered the ECHR practice regarding the possibility of limiting the right of access to court.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court ruling on closing appellate proceedings on the complaint against refusal to accept a statement about increasing claims.
Case No. 903/1251/23 (903/187/24) dated 17/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of legal assistance expenses must be proportionate to the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the time spent by the lawyer. The court took into account that the party’s legal position did not change during the case consideration, and the arguments in the response to the cassation complaint were similar to those previously stated. It was also noted that court sessions were held in video conference mode.
Case No. 922/2809/19 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging the village council’s decision on transferring a land plot of 0.9533 hectares to private ownership of an agricultural society. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) the disputed land plot belongs to communal property as it is located within a settlement; 2) the society could not receive this plot free of charge, as legislation does not provide for free transfer of communal land to legal entities; 3) it has not been proven that property belonging to the society is located on this plot, and therefore there are no grounds for applying Article 120 of the Land Code on land rights transfer together with real estate. The court partially satisfied the claim – declared the village council’s decision on plot transfer illegal and obliged the society to return it to communal ownership, but refused the claim to cancel the registration record.
Case No. 803/543/16 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the price in the contract is generally considered market-based unless proven otherwise; 2) the tax authority did not provide proper evidence of the contract price’s non-compliance with the market level; 3) the transaction was not controlled and therefore did not require mandatory determination of the standard price.
Case No. 640/29622/20 dated 19/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the private executor’s resolution on collecting the main remuneration when executing a court ruling on property seizure. The court was guided by the fact that the private executor’s main remuneration and executive fee have different legal nature. Although their collection procedure is the same, the grounds and conditions for collection are regulated by different norms. By lawThe private executor is obliged to issue a resolution on collecting the main fee simultaneously with the opening of enforcement proceedings, except for cases of alimony collection. The law does not contain other exceptions regarding the collection of the private executor’s main fee.
The Supreme Court cancelled the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the first instance court to reject the claim, recognizing as lawful the collection of the main fee by the private executor when executing an order to seize property.
[Case No. 240/411/24 dated 18/12/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that although Law No. 1584-IX established new pension sizes for Chernobyl victims, they turned out to be significantly smaller than those previously guaranteed by Law No. 230/96-VR. Since this violates constitutional rights to social protection, the court decided to apply the norms of the old law, which provided for pension payment in the amount of 8 minimum pensions for age for disabled persons of group II. The court also took into account the conclusions of a similar case No. 240/1121/24, where the Supreme Court confirmed the need to apply more favorable norms of the previous law.
[Case No. 140/1940/24 dated 18/12/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not submit a new motion to restore the time limit for appealing to court (the previous one was rejected as unfounded) and did not pay the court fee, as required by the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without movement. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was given additional time to eliminate deficiencies but did not do so.
[Case No. 440/4414/18 dated 19/12/2024]
Subject of dispute: challenging tax notifications-decisions on reducing negative value of corporate income tax and VAT based on the results of a documentary scheduled inspection.
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) business transactions with LLC ‘Alpha Promin’ and LLC ‘Intersitytorhh’ were real, as the counterparties had the necessary resources to conduct activities; 2) transactions with LLC ‘Myrkom’ and Farm ‘Krokos’ were recognized as unreal due to the lack of material and labor resources; 3) the tax authority violated the statute of limitations (1095 days) when issuing a tax notification-decision regarding transactions with LLC ‘Myrkom’ and Farm ‘Krokos’ for February 2015.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the taxpayer, cancelling the decisions of previous instance courts regarding the reduction of negative VAT value due to the tax authority’s violation of the statute of limitations.
[Case No. 480/4254/24 dated 19/12/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration in Sumy Oblast missed the 10-day period for filing an application to restore the time limit for appellate appeal (filed on 13.09.2024 instead of the deadline of 09.09.2024). At the same time, the complainant’s reference to martial law, shelling, and power outages was not recognized by the court as valid reasons, as a direct causal relationship between these circumstances and the missed deadline was not proven.
[Case No. 160/7412/23 dated 19/12/2024]
The court established that the plaintiff missed the 15-day period for filing an appellate complaint, as the ruling of the first instance court was delivered to her electronic cabinet on 26.04.2023, and the appellate complaint was filed only on 16.05.2023. The reasons for missing the deadline (being busy in other court hearings, trips to the dacha, waiting for the results of general meetings, visit to the Medical and Social Expert Commission, air raid alerts) were not recognized by the court as valid, as they were not objectively insurmountable circumstances.Case No. 520/22284/24 dated 19/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that failure to take interim measures would lead to a complete halt of production at the enterprise, which is critically important for the economy during martial law, loss of jobs for 119 employees, inability to fulfill international contracts, and loss of business reputation. The court also took into account that interim measures do not resolve the dispute on the merits, but only temporarily preserve the status quo until the final resolution of the case.
Case No. 916/5165/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court established that the tenant systematically did not pay rent for more than three years, which is grounds for terminating the contract. However, the courts incorrectly refused to return the land plot, wrongly applying the norm on the transfer of land ownership to the state, since a change in the management body of a state-owned enterprise does not mean a change in the form of ownership of the property.
Case No. 911/1700/23 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the land plots are located within the 100-meter coastal protection zone of the reservoir and partially on forestry lands. Due to obvious natural characteristics, the acquirer should have known that acquiring private ownership of such plots is impossible. Moreover, at the time of transferring the plots to private ownership, they were in state ownership, and the village council did not have the authority to dispose of them.
Case No. 904/2939/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court established that the Vasylkiv Village Council is not the owner and administrator of the disputed land plot, as it is registered as state property. The prosecutor incorrectly identified the body authorized to protect the state’s interests in these legal relations by filing a claim on behalf of an improper plaintiff. This is an independent basis for refusing to satisfy the claims.
Case No. 910/9262/23 dated 19/12/2024
The appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings since the complainant missed the appeal deadline and did not prove the validity of the reasons for such omission. The court established that FOP Boiko K.V. familiarized herself with the case materials on 13.10.2023, knew about the existence of the court decision through the initiation of enforcement proceedings, but did not take any actions to timely appeal until August 2024. Moreover, a copy of the decision was properly sent to the FOP’s address but returned due to expiration of storage period.
Case No. 904/5693/20 dated 12/12/2024
When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that the bankruptcy administrator chose an ineffective method of protecting creditors’ rights – he requested recognition of the violation and imposition of responsibility but did not file a claim for specific damages. According to the legal position of the Supreme Court, such a method of protection is not effective, as it does not lead to real protection of the violated right and creates the need for repeated court appeal.
Case No. 922/493/21 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of 25,460 UAH within the bankruptcy case. The court was guided by the fact that the applicant provided all necessary evidence of legal assistance (contract, report on completed work and its description), expenses were incurred in connection with the case consideration.At the cassation instance, where the applicant won the case, and the respondent did not object to the amount of claimed expenses. The court also took into account that the main cassation complaint was dismissed, which confirms the reasonableness of the legal assistance expenses incurred. The Supreme Court fully satisfied the motion and ordered the respondent to recover UAH 25,460 in professional legal assistance expenses in favor of the applicant.
Case No. 913/266/20(374/269/21) dated 17/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court incorrectly refused to open proceedings, as it did not take into account that the case had already been transferred to the commercial court within the bankruptcy case. According to Article 7 of the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine, all disputes involving the debtor must be considered by the commercial court under the rules of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Therefore, the appeal should have been made to the commercial appellate court.
Case No. 906/69/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_4’s representative did not have proper authority to conclude a purchase and sale agreement on behalf of PERSON_2, as no statement from the principal confirming the power of attorney was obtained, as required by CMU Resolution No. 164 under martial law conditions. The absence of such a statement indicates the lack of PERSON_2’s will to alienate the share. The court also took into account that in the absence of a lawful purchase and sale agreement, the plaintiff did not acquire ownership of the share that could be protected by the original claim.
Case No. 911/1785/22 dated 18/12/2024
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court did not properly investigate the key issue – whether the plaintiff is indeed a member of the gardening society, did not assess the respondent’s arguments about the forgery of the membership book, and unreasonably refused to appoint an examination of documents. The appellate court also incorrectly referred to the prejudicial nature of decisions in other cases regarding the plaintiff’s membership in the society.
Case No. 910/17927/20 (910/12658/23) dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the trademark owner (respondent) is in bankruptcy proceedings, and the trademark itself is an asset of the debtor and part of the liquidation mass. Early termination of trademark registration would violate the rights of both the debtor and its creditors, as it can be used to repay creditor claims. The company’s presence in bankruptcy proceedings was recognized as a valid reason for non-use of the trademark.
Case No. 910/17961/23 dated 17/12/2024
In making its decision, the court was guided by the fact that legal assistance expenses were real and confirmed by appropriate evidence (legal assistance agreement, service acceptance certificate, payment documents). The court also took into account that the amount of expenses is justified and proportionate to the complexity of the case, time spent by the lawyer, and the scope of services provided. Importantly, the burden of proving the disproportionality of expenses is placed on the party objecting to their recovery, however, the respondent did not provide convincing evidence of the unreasonableness of the claimed amount.
Case No. 910/7152/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor had legal grounds to file a claim in the interests of the state, as the Kyiv City Council had not taken appropriate measures for a long timeHere is the translation:
The city council did not take sufficient actions to protect the interests of the territorial community, although it was aware of the lease agreement violations. The fact that the city council filed a similar lawsuit after the prosecutor’s appeal to the court cannot negate the legitimacy of the prosecutor’s representation of state interests.
Case No. 910/15308/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the contractor fully completed the works under the contract, albeit with a delay; 2) the delay in work performance was not the contractor’s fault, which was confirmed by a court decision in another case; 3) the bank guarantee covered the performance of contractual obligations, not their timing, therefore the customer had no grounds for claiming funds under the guarantee.
Case No. 910/6340/22 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the buyer (SE “Agrofond-Zerno”) signed the acceptance certificate without remarks regarding the quantity and quality of goods. The buyer was aware of all circumstances of the sale of arrested property and voluntarily assumed the corresponding risks. After signing the acceptance certificate, the buyer as the owner of the goods bears the risks of possible shortage in accordance with Article 668 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 990/210/24 dated 13/12/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that under martial law, legislation directly prohibits the election of the President of Ukraine. Such prohibition corresponds to the Constitution of Ukraine, which allows restrictions on electoral rights during martial law. Additionally, the court noted that under current conditions, ensuring state and citizens’ security is a priority, not the implementation of electoral rights.
Case No. 810/107/16 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Tax Code of Ukraine (in the version after 01.01.2015), VAT tax reporting is submitted exclusively in electronic form. A contract on recognition of electronic documents was concluded between the taxpayer and the tax authority, and the taxpayer did not provide evidence of impossibility of submitting reporting electronically.
Case No. 640/24251/20 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that disputes regarding accrual and payment of one-time financial assistance do not relate to public-power functions in implementing state tax policy transferred from SFS to STA. The court also established that procedural law norms were violated, as the decision was made regarding the rights and obligations of the Main Directorate of SFS, which was not involved in the case.
Case No. 826/14206/13-а dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority did not prove the plaintiff’s inclusion of advance payment for services amounting to 3.85 million hryvnias in gross expenses. The plaintiff provided evidence that this amount was recorded as unfinished capital investments. The tax authority could not substantiate its conclusions about overstating gross expenses. The court also considered that the burden of proving the legitimacy of tax decisions lies with the controlling body.
Case No. 420/11410/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court noted that after increasing military personnel’s official salaries from March 2018, the respondent should have verified whether the increase in monetary support exceeds the possible indexation amount. If the increase is less than the possible indexation amount, the militaryThe serviceman has the right to receive the difference between these amounts. The courts of previous instances incorrectly did not determine the specific amount of indexation to which the plaintiff is entitled.
Case No. 280/7379/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that for disputes regarding public service, a one-month term for filing a lawsuit is established (Part 5, Article 122 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine). Since the plaintiff filed a lawsuit two years after being dismissed from service (in September 2023, having been dismissed in September 2021) and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the term, the court considered the filing term to be missed. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument about applying a three-month term under labor legislation, as the dispute concerns public service.
Case No. 380/15173/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court noted that the mere fact of martial law introduction is not an automatic basis for restoring procedural terms – one must prove a direct causal relationship between martial law and missing the term. The military unit did not provide evidence of how martial law or the absence of a lawyer specifically prevented timely filing of an appeal. The court also established that the decision was properly delivered to the military unit’s electronic cabinet.
Case No. 280/9407/21 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of issuing construction permits, the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate (DIAM) was not aware of the fact of challenging the environmental impact assessment conclusion in case No. 280/4454/19, and in case No. 280/3315/19, a decision had already been made that had entered into legal force. Therefore, DIAM had no grounds to suspend document review in accordance with the requirements of the Law “On the Permit System in Economic Activity”.
Case No. 826/14435/16 dated 17/12/2024
The court established that the company director, who was simultaneously the chief accountant, was on a business trip during the inspection, which he had notified the tax authority about in advance and requested postponement of the inspection terms. The tax authority ignored this request and drew up an act of non-provision of documents, although it did not ensure proper delivery of document requests. Moreover, the company provided all necessary documents during the appeal of tax notifications-decisions.
Case No. 560/4290/24 dated 19/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the state executive service’s resolution on imposing a fine on the Pension Fund. The court was guided by the fact that the Pension Fund missed the 10-day term for appealing the first instance court decision. The reasons cited by the fund for missing the term (martial law and heavy workload) were not recognized as valid, as no specific evidence was provided of how these circumstances prevented timely filing of an appeal. The court also noted that organizational difficulties in a state body’s work cannot be a valid reason for missing procedural terms. The Supreme Court left the Pension Fund’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 560/853/20 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the new regulatory monetary land valuation could not be applied before the beginning of a new budget period according to the principle of tax legislation stability; 2) return of returnable financial assistance is not income and is not subject to reflection in tax reporting.3) legal assistance expenses were reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case.
Case No. 911/2678/23 dated 10/12/2024
Subject of dispute – obligation of energy supply companies to adjust (cancel) the volume of electricity consumed in September-October 2021. First and appellate instance courts rejected the claim, referring to the fact that consumer data has lower priority than system operator data. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts did not take into account the consumer’s right to verify indicators in case of doubts and the suppliers’ obligation to conduct such verification. The courts also did not evaluate the plaintiff’s evidence of timely appeals regarding incorrect charges and suppliers’ recognition of erroneous indicators. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decisions and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 910/1823/23 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by Alliance Holding company. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case materials and cassation complaint arguments, concluded that a repeated case review was necessary. The court determined that previous judicial instances (Kyiv Commercial Court and Northern Commercial Appellate Court) did not fully investigate all case circumstances, which could lead to an incorrect dispute resolution. As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint of Alliance Holding LLC, canceled the previous instance courts’ decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/517/24 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt, penalties, and inflation losses from JSC ‘Gas Distribution System Operator Vinnytsyagaz’ under a natural gas purchase and sale agreement. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the defendant fully repaid the main debt during the case review; 2) due to the termination of the gas distribution license, the defendant lost the main income source and has a difficult financial situation; 3) the plaintiff did not prove the existence of damages from late payment; 4) it is necessary to ensure a balance of parties’ interests. The court partially satisfied the claim – reduced the penalties by 50% and recovered from the defendant penalties, fine, inflation losses, and 3% per annum in a reduced amount.
Case No. 280/2475/21 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the plaintiff was not working in the prosecutor’s office at the time the Law No. 113-IX came into force, since he expressed a desire to be transferred to the district prosecutor’s office, he had to successfully pass certification according to this law. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of technical problems during testing, and his appeal after passing certification indicates an attempt to challenge the negative result.
Case No. 440/15519/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine formally implemented the Constitutional Court’s decision of 07.04.2021 No. 1-r(ІІ)/2021 by adopting Law No. 1584-IX, the pension sizes established by this law are significantly lower than previously guaranteed. The court emphasized that the state cannot resort to restrictions that violate the essence of constitutional social rights of persons affected by the Chornobyl disaster. Therefore, the disputed legal relations should be governed by the norms of Law No. 796-XII in the version of Law No. 230/96-VR.which provide for a higher pension amount.
Case No. 907/310/22 dated 19/12/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the fact that the valuable shipment was not lost by the enterprise, but was stolen by unidentified persons as a result of illegal intrusion into the production building. The court established the absence of the defendant’s fault in non-fulfillment of the contract terms, since the theft of the shipment occurred due to unlawful actions of third parties. The plaintiff’s attempt to review the case on newly discovered circumstances was rejected, as the arguments presented were not new circumstances, but were aimed at re-evaluating evidence already examined by the court.
Case No. 903/62/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the corporate rights of JSC ‘Volynhaz’ were transferred to the management of the National Agency for Identification and Management of Assets (ARMA), which is equivalent to a state share in the authorized capital of over 25%. By law, a private executor has no right to enforce decisions regarding legal entities with such a state ownership share – this falls exclusively within the competence of the state executive service.
Case No. 910/18099/23 dated 17/12/2024
The court, when making its decision, was guided by the following: 1) agreements on assignment of debt claim rights to third parties were declared invalid, therefore the original plaintiff remains the creditor; 2) collection of funds in favor of an improper creditor cannot be considered proper performance of the obligation; 3) the obligation to return funds will arise only after returning previously collected funds to the defendant and after the plaintiff fulfills the obligation of full project financing.
Case No. 903/283/24 dated 17/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of construction commencement in 2018, the developer had an obligation to pay a share contribution. Although this obligation was canceled from 2020, for objects whose construction began earlier and were not commissioned by 2020, the obligation to pay a share contribution remained until the moment of commissioning. Since the company did not pay voluntarily, the funds are subject to recovery as unjustly retained property.
Case No. 902/1435/23 dated 17/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court’s resolution was adopted with a violation of procedural law – there were no signatures of two judges on the introductory and operative parts of the decision, which were announced in the court session. According to procedural legislation, the court decision must be signed by the entire composition of the court on the day of its compilation. The absence of judges’ signatures is an unconditional basis for canceling the court decision.
Case No. 240/9795/24 dated 18/12/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the plaintiff’s claims about declaring the Pension Fund’s actions as unlawful regarding non-accrual and non-payment of an increased pension as a victim of the Chornobyl disaster. The court was guided by the fact that a pension is a monthly periodic payment, so its amount is known to the recipient from the moment of each payment. The plaintiff had the opportunity to learn about the violation of his rights from the moment of receiving the first payment in July 2021, but applied to the court only in May 2024, missing the 6-month term for court appeal. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s reference to learning about rights violations only after familiarizationInterpretation of Supreme Court Practice in 2024, not being a valid reason for reinstating a missed deadline. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the decisions of lower courts on returning the statement of claim due to missing the court appeal deadline.
Case No. 810/1051/15 from 17/12/2024
The cassation instance court was guided by the following: 1) restrictions on accepting a tax notification-decision before a court verdict enters into legal force do not apply, as criminal proceedings were not initiated against the taxpayer’s officials; 2) inclusion of debt in accounting in 2010, when the company was not a profit tax payer, does not exempt from the obligation to reflect it in tax accounting according to the rules of such accounting; 3) the debt of 2.47 million UAH was not repaid as of the time of inspection.
Case No. 927/994/23 from 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt for delivered goods (technical liquid ammonia), penalties and inflation losses totaling over 31 million UAH. The cassation instance court noted that personal sanctions applied to the ultimate beneficial owner of the plaintiff company cannot automatically extend to the company itself. Moreover, even if sanctions are applied directly to the legal entity, this is not grounds for terminating its contractual obligations, but may only be a basis for postponing their execution. The court also pointed to the need to verify the validity of calculations of debt, penalties, and inflation losses. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision on claim rejection and referred the case for a new review to the appellate instance for a comprehensive examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 903/347/24 from 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the property sale stage begins from the moment of publishing information about the sale at each separate stage of trading. Since repeated trades were scheduled after the moratorium was introduced, the executor’s actions on selling the debtor’s property contradict the law, as each trading stage (first, repeated, third) is independent and requires new publication of sale information. Previous publication of information within the first, unsuccessful trades is not taken into account.
Case No. 906/1320/23 from 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendants (heirs of the original developer) have a valid land lease agreement for this object, concluded by court decision. Moreover, the claim to cancel property registration is an ineffective method of protection, as registration merely confirms the fact of possession but does not create ownership right.
Case No. 910/13410/22 from 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the Ministry of Justice did not have the right to re-examine a complaint for which a decision had already been made and canceled by the court. Such actions violate the principle of court decision mandatory nature and legal certainty. Additionally, the court noted that changing the word ‘repeated’ to ‘new’ in a normative act does not change the essence of the norm that was previously declared unlawful by a court decision.
Case No. 910/6192/24 from 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on canceling registration actions regarding ownership rights to a grain terminal. The court in rendering the decision was guided by the fact that: 1) execution1. Regarding Case No. 916/1715/22 dated 11/12/2024:
The court established that under the guise of a contract for biological water body purification, a land use agreement with a water object was actually concealed. The Kiliya Interdistrict Water Management Department, as a permanent land user, did not have the right to transfer the land plot with a water body to LLC ‘Dunayagroservice’, as only the district state administration is authorized to do so. Additionally, the department did not have the right to grant permission for settlement and fishing of water bioresources.
2. Regarding Case No. 922/741/24 dated 17/12/2024:
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of legal assistance expenses must be reasonable, justified, and proportional to the subject of the dispute. The court considered the nature and scope of services provided by the lawyer, including preparation of a cassation complaint, additional explanations, and participation in two court hearings. An important factor was that recovering legal assistance expenses cannot be a means of excessive enrichment of a party.
3. Regarding Case No. 615/1009/20 dated 06/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the demand to cancel the state registration of the lease agreement is an ineffective method of protection, as the contract’s term had already expired at the time of case consideration. Regarding the requirement to return the land plot – the court did not properly examine evidence that the plot had already been returned to the owner and transferred to another entity’s use.
4. Regarding Case No. 910/17150/23 dated 17/12/2024:
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the Antimonopoly Committee proved the existence of stable economic relations between bidders, simultaneous employment of the same persons, provision of financial assistance, use of the same IP addresses, communication between participants, and synchronicity of actions in preparing for bidding. All these facts, taken together, indicate coordinated behavior of bidding participants, which led to distortion of their results.
5. Regarding Case No. 913/401/20(359/5215/23) dated 27/11/2024:
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a land plot due to double registration of ownership rights to the same land plot under different cadastral numbers. The court noted that in the case of double registration of real estate ownership rights, a vindicatory claim (property recovery) is an appropriate method of protection. Satisfying such a claim will result in closing one of the sections of the real estate rights registry. The courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly considered the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (property recovery) as inappropriate. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for new consideration to the court of first instance to resolve the dispute on its merits.
6. Regarding Case No. 922/2738/21 (922/4386/23) dated 17/12/2024:
The court, when rendering the decision, considered that cancellation of the challenged order would lead to the return of property to the previous owner, who is in bankruptcy proceedings; 2) there is a risk of further alienation of property within the bankruptcy procedure, which would make it impossible to protect the plaintiff’s rights within a single court process; 3) prohibition of registration actions is a legally prescribed method of securing a claim in disputes about canceling Ministry of Justice orders. The court left the cassation complaints unsatisfied and maintained the ruling on securing the claim by prohibiting registration actions to execute the challenged Ministry of Justice order.
