Case No. 991/4875/21 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Misappropriation of state budget funds in a particularly large amount (17.3 million UAH) through fraud in the procurement of apartments for National Guard of Ukraine servicemembers.
Main Court Arguments: 1) The accused PERSON_8, PERSON_7, and PERSON_6, acting in prior conspiracy, submitted false documents about apartment readiness for occupancy, although in reality the apartments did not have utilities connected and were uninhabitable; 2) Through their actions, they misled the National Guard procurement commission and won the housing procurement tender; 3) The court considered the defendants’ sincere remorse, their active assistance in the investigation, and commitment to compensate for damages.
Court Decision: Plea agreement approved, whereby the accused were sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment with a 3-year probationary period and an obligation to fully compensate the state for damages.
Case No. 927/1089/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that civil defense protective structures were objects not subject to privatization under legislation. Since private ownership rights to such property could not arise under any circumstances, the appropriate method of protecting state rights is a negatory lawsuit. The return of property to the state does not violate JSC “Ukrtelekom’s” rights to peaceful possession of property, as it corresponds to public interests during martial law.
Case No. 380/14667/22 dated 20/12/2024
Main Court Arguments: 1) The plaintiff conducted customs clearance of three vehicles without proper documents confirming their deregistration in Poland, which violates Customs Code requirements. 2) At the time of processing, the vehicles had permanent registration in Poland, confirmed by official registry data. 3) The plaintiff, as a customs official, was obligated to verify the vehicles’ deregistration and refuse customs clearance in the absence of such documents.
Case No. 160/14683/22 dated 20/12/2024
The court established that the border service decision was unjustified, as it did not contain specific grounds for refusal and referenced an invalid order. Additionally, it did not specify which documents the plaintiff lacked for border crossing, despite providing all necessary documents, including a certificate of enrollment in a foreign university and a deferment from conscription.
Case No. 420/21516/24 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of studying at the Kyiv Military Lyceum named after Ivan Bohun as a fact of military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
The court was guided by the fact that cases for establishing legal facts can be considered in two procedures – non-judicial and judicial. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and clarified that if a fact is established through a non-judicial procedure, it can be challenged in an administrative court, but if established judicially, the case is considered under civil proceedings rules. Since the plaintiff immediately approached the court to establish the fact without attempting to resolve the matter non-judicially, such a case cannot be considered under administrative proceedings.
The court refused to open administrative proceedings as the dispute does not fall under administrative judicial procedure.Case No. 1592/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant did not provide proper evidence of notifying the plaintiff about changes in the participants’ composition (did not provide a settlement document or proof of delivery of a registered letter). The court also did not accept a screenshot of an email as evidence of notification, as the defendant could not provide the original email, and the screenshot’s authenticity was questioned.
Case No. 817/1775/17 dated 18/12/2024
The court noted that to arrest funds in accounts, there must be a tax debt and proof by the tax authority of the absence or insufficiency of other property to cover the debt. Since the tax authority did not provide evidence of the tax debt and its amount, nor did it prove the absence of other taxpayer property that could be a source of debt repayment, there are no grounds for fund arrest.
Case No. 200/4992/24 dated 20/12/2024
The first and appellate instance courts returned the statement of claim, believing it was signed by a person whose powers were not properly confirmed, as the power of attorney was issued to a legal entity, not a specific individual. However, the Supreme Court found this approach excessively formalistic and noted that the power of attorney clearly outlined the powers of specific individuals to represent the plaintiff’s interests, including in courts.
Case No. 0440/7026/18 dated 18/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging a tax notification-decision on transport tax assessment for a Range Rover Sport 2015. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff’s car meets the transport tax criteria, as its market value (1,513,888.65 UAH) exceeds the threshold of 375 minimum wages (1,396,125 UAH). The court noted that a minor difference between the engine’s technical volume (2,993 cm³) and the rounded value (3,000 cm³) does not affect the taxation object, as engine volume is used as an economic, not purely technical characteristic. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instance courts’ decisions and rejected the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 380/10774/21 dated 18/12/2024
The court noted that when determining rent, the tax authority must consider: 1) lease agreement conditions regarding rent for different types of lands (water bodies, wetlands, hydraulic structures, hayfields); 2) current normative monetary land valuation; 3) inflation indices, as provided by both the contract and legislation. Previous instance courts did not properly investigate these issues.
Case No. 806/2615/17 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is not the owner of property complexes in Lubashivka, Odesa region, confirmed by the Zhytomyr District Administrative Court’s resolution and other documents. It was established that the state registrar registered property rights to the property complexes for another person with the same name but different personal data. As the plaintiff is not the property owner, they cannot be the taxpayer.
Case No. 215/2914/24 dated 20/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that an individual does not have the right to file a claim to establish the court’s lack of competence.Judges, as such disputes can only arise between entities with authoritative powers. Moreover, challenging judges’ actions regarding case consideration is possible only within the relevant court case, not by filing a separate lawsuit. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s chosen method of protection is ineffective, as it does not correspond to the methods of protection defined in the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine.
Case No. 280/2157/22 dated 20/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the dispute arose in public service relations and concerns compensation payment, not public-authoritative functions in the field of tax policy implementation. Since the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service was not terminated as a legal entity at the time of case consideration, and the dispute does not concern the transferred functions of the State Tax Service – there are no grounds for replacing the debtor. Moreover, the court of first instance violated the procedural rights of participants by not properly notifying them about the consideration of the application.
Case No. 380/16592/22 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging orders on dismissing the head of the police monitoring sector for refusing to undergo an alcohol intoxication test.
Main arguments of the court: 1) The court established that the plaintiff, being the head of the police monitoring sector, refused to undergo an alcohol intoxication test both at the stop location and in a medical facility. 2) Such behavior of a police leader is a gross violation of service discipline, discrediting the police officer’s title and undermining the police’s authority. 3) Closing the administrative offense case does not exclude the possibility of disciplinary liability, as these are different types of responsibility with different procedures and grounds.
Court decision: The claim was denied, the dismissal was recognized as lawful.
Case No. 240/16693/20 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging a tax notification-decision on applying penalty sanctions and revoking the license for retail fuel trade due to violations in inventory accounting and submitting inaccurate data when obtaining the license.
Main arguments of the court: 1) The plaintiff did not provide documents confirming the accounting and origin of 2,613.91 liters of liquefied gas remaining at the gas station. 2) When obtaining the license, the company did not indicate in the documents the existence of a second gas storage tank, which was actually used in the activity. 3) Submitting inaccurate data when obtaining the license is a legal basis for its revocation according to part 47 of article 15 of the relevant law.
Court decision: The cassation complaint of LLC ‘Zhytomyr Oil Gas’ was left unsatisfied, and the decisions of previous instances were left unchanged.
Case No. 160/32749/23 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of dispute – payment of monetary allowance indexation to a serviceman for different service periods.
The court established that part of the plaintiff’s claims regarding indexation for 2015-2018 had already been the subject of consideration in another case, therefore the proceedings in this part are subject to closure. At the same time, claims regarding the payment of fixed indexation-difference in the amount of 4,463.15 UAH per month for the period 2018-2021 had not been previously considered, so the case in this part is sent for a new review. The court also pointed out that previous instances incorrectly applied the norm of leaving the claim without consideration, as a decision had already been made regarding the previous case, which had entered into legal force.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint – canceled the decisions of previous instances, closed the proceedings regarding claims for 2015-2018, and sent the case for a new review in the part of claims.Case Law for 2018-2021
Case No. 240/21650/23 dated 20/12/2024
The court concluded that additional remuneration should not be included in the calculation of one-time financial assistance upon dismissal and health improvement assistance, as this is directly prohibited by Procedure No. 260. However, the court recognized that when calculating compensation for unused leave, such remuneration should be taken into account, as it is a monthly additional type of monetary provision, and the relevant norms do not contain a prohibition on its consideration.
Case No. 120/16025/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, recognizing the military unit’s certificate as sufficient evidence of participation in combat operations. The appellate court reversed this decision, believing that the right to remuneration must be confirmed by additional lists. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not investigate all circumstances of the case, in particular, did not verify primary documents and did not establish what specific tasks the serviceman performed. The court also did not take into account that the absence of formal lists cannot automatically deprive the right to remuneration if participation in combat operations is confirmed by other evidence.
Case No. 320/29317/23 dated 20/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that since July 11, 2022, there has been a complete ban on the use of hookahs in catering establishments, regardless of their composition. Providing hookah preparation services is considered promotion of tobacco product sales and is subject to liability, even if there is no direct product advertising. Such restrictions were introduced as part of implementing Ukraine’s international obligations to combat smoking.
Case No. 240/1692/24 dated 20/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the legislator formally implemented the Constitutional Court’s decision of 04.07.2021 by establishing new pension amounts in Law No. 1584-IX, these amounts are significantly lower than those previously guaranteed. Therefore, the provisions of Law No. 796-XII in the version of Law No. 230/96-VR, which provided for higher pension amounts, should be applied to such legal relations. The court also noted that the issue of which law the plaintiff receives a pension and whether there are grounds for its recalculation was not properly investigated.
Case No. 810/2392/18 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions by which additional tax obligations were charged due to recognition of operations with a contractor as unrealistic. The court was guided by the fact that the mere existence of a verdict regarding the contractor’s fictitious entrepreneurship cannot automatically indicate the unreality of all its operations. It is necessary to investigate the reality of specific economic transactions and the presence of business purpose. The controlling authority must prove that the taxpayer acted in bad faith or without due diligence when cooperating with such a contractor. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review, as the courts did not properly investigate all circumstances of the case and evidence of the reality of economic transactions.
Case No. 440/6875/24 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of dispute – payment of compensation for loss of part of monetary income due to violation of indexation payment terms for a serviceman’s monetary provision. The court was guided by the fact that compensation for loss of income is a component of salary and has a compensatory nature.For cases that occurred before July 19, 2022, the version of the Labor Code that previously applied and did not limit the statute of limitations for wage recovery claims shall be used. The day of actual monetary income payment does not affect the period for which compensation is paid. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance, as the plaintiff cannot be deprived of the right to judicial protection due to incorrect application of statutes of limitations by courts.
Case No. 560/2963/23 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging a tax notification-decision on applying penalties for selling fuel without registration as an excise tax payer. The court established that the controlling authority incorrectly qualified fuel receipt operations as sales. Under the Tax Code of Ukraine, only fuel sales operations create an obligation to register as an excise tax payer, while fuel receipt operations do not entail such consequences. Since the tax authority did not prove the company’s actual fuel sales, there are no grounds for applying penalties. The Supreme Court canceled previous instances’ decisions and satisfied the taxpayer’s claim to cancel the tax notification-decision.
Case No. 120/13215/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, recognizing the certificate of combat participation as sufficient evidence. The appellate court canceled this decision, considering that the certificate alone without additional lists is not proper confirmation. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not investigate all case circumstances, specifically did not verify primary documents and did not establish what exact tasks the serviceman performed.
Case No. 0907/2-а-3/2011 dated 20/12/2024
Subject of dispute – compensation for property and moral damages caused by state executive service by failing to execute a criminal court judgment regarding compensation from the convicted person in favor of victims. The court proceeded from the fact that the mere prolonged non-execution of a court decision cannot be grounds for damages by recovering the unrecovered court-ordered amount. The state is not responsible for private persons’ debts, and its obligations are limited to providing necessary assistance to the claimant through judicial executors. Since it was not proven that specifically unlawful actions of state executors led to the impossibility of executing the court decision, there are no grounds for property damage recovery. The court partially satisfied the cassation complaint – modified the appellate court’s reasoning part but left unchanged its decision to refuse property damage recovery and award moral damages of 30,000 UAH to each plaintiff.
Case No. 927/1593/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant did not provide proper evidence of fulfilling the obligation to notify the plaintiff about changes in participant composition – neither the original email nor proof of postal delivery was provided. The court also considered that the compensation amount was agreed by parties in the contract as fair and not subject to reduction.
Case No. 826/19813/16 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the person sold a significant number of real estate objects (20 apartments with land plots during 2013-2015), they were not registered as a physical personIndividual Entrepreneur. Taxation rules under Article 177 of the Tax Code of Ukraine apply only to registered entrepreneurs, and the mere fact of systematic property sales without individual entrepreneur registration is not grounds for applying entrepreneurial taxation rates.
Case No. 463/8028/22 dated 16/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the employee arbitrarily went on leave without proper coordination with the hospital management. During martial law, a hospital is a critical infrastructure facility and has the right to refuse leave. The employee did not prove the valid reasons for their absence from work and did not receive an order for leave.
Case No. 209/1008/24 dated 16/12/2024:
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings regarding the first instance court’s verdict in a criminal case. The court established that the appellate court incorrectly refused to open proceedings, citing that a verdict issued in a simplified procedure is not subject to appeal. In fact, the convicted person was appealing the verdict on grounds of violation of the right to defense and absence of a defender during investigative actions, which does not fall under the appeal restrictions provided by Article 394 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellate court did not consider that the complaint was filed on grounds other than those subject to appeal prohibition and did not properly verify the complainant’s arguments. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 370/1883/23 dated 19/12/2024:
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by the prosecutor’s office against the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case regarding charges of battery (Part 1, Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds to cancel the appellate court’s decision, as it satisfied the prosecutor’s complaint. Based on the review, the Supreme Court canceled the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 1313/3628/2012 dated 18/12/2024:
The court established that the additional decision was made in violation of procedural law, as it effectively resolved a new claim that had no connection to the original claim about determining an additional inheritance acceptance period. Moreover, the disputed objects were located in Lviv, so the claim should have been considered under exclusive jurisdiction rules in the Frankivskyi District Court of Lviv, not in the Mykolaiv District Court of Lviv Region.
Case No. 9901/206/21 dated 17/12/2024:
Subject of dispute – challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated March 25, 2021, No. 123/2021 by LLC “Trans Set Geo”. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part of the decision, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments due to the absence of the reasoning part. The only thing that can be seen is that the case was considered by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as an appellate instance after review by the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appellate complaint by LLC “Trans Set Geo” without satisfaction and maintained the first instance court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 9901/203/21 dated 17/12/2024:
Subject of dispute – challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated March 25, 2021, No. 123/2021 by “Nadra West Group”. Unfortunately, from the provided text…It is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision have been provided without the reasoning part, where the court’s legal positions and justifications are usually presented. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal of LLC ‘Nadra West Group’ and leave unchanged the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court dated August 12, 2024.
Case No. 591/6525/18 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and the appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a person for attempted murder, illegal handling of weapons, minor bodily injuries, and resistance to a law enforcement officer. The court was guided by the fact that for some crimes (minor bodily injuries and resistance to a law enforcement officer), the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired, which is an unconditional ground for exemption from liability. At the same time, the court left unchanged the qualification and punishment for more serious crimes – attempted murder and illegal handling of weapons. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – exempted the convicted person from liability for less serious crimes due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but left the punishment of 10 years of imprisonment for more serious crimes.
Case No. 753/716/21 dated 18/12/2024
The court established that the plaintiff carried out unauthorized redevelopment of a non-residential premises without coordination with other co-owners, at the expense of premises not belonging to her, without the corresponding project and permits. At the same time, the plaintiff did not make claims about allocating her a share of premises with an area of 186.4 sq.m, which belongs to her according to a previous court decision, but demanded recognition of ownership of the increased area of 212.4 sq.m as a result of redevelopment.
Case No. 824/107/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the original creditor (Radius Systems Holdings Limited) was subject to sanctions on May 12, 2023, and the replacement of the creditor with a new company occurred on June 27, 2023, that is, after the introduction of sanctions. The court concluded that the private law instrument (application for recognition of an arbitration decision) is used to circumvent sanctions and withdraw assets, which contradicts the public order of Ukraine.
Case No. 933/363/22 dated 11/12/2024
The court of first instance satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, recognizing the decision on land plot transfer as illegal, since the defendant had previously received a land plot free of charge for personal farming. The appellate court canceled this decision, believing that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection and should have filed a vindication claim. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision due to procedural violations in the restoration of the term for appellate appeal.
Case No. 759/1602/24 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of the dispute: establishing the fact of family relations between the applicant’s grandmother and her mother, as well as between the grandmother and her brother to obtain documents from the civil registration authorities. The court was guided by the fact that the applicant did not prove the legal significance of establishing these facts for protecting their rights and did not explain what specific rights or obligations would arise after establishing these facts. The court also took into account the discrepancies in documents regarding the data about the parents of the persons between whom family relations are being established. It was important that the applicant attempted…I will translate the legal text into English:
I will use this decision in another administrative case regarding amendments to the birth certificate record. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the application for establishing family relations.
Case No. 676/7843/19 dated 17/12/2024
The court of cassation instance established that lower courts made significant violations by not ensuring translation of documents from Latvian and Russian into Ukrainian and their proper examination. The courts also did not take into account that the resolution on closing the criminal proceedings regarding possible unauthorized investigation methods against the convicted person was cancelled by the investigating judge.
Case No. 715/2192/19 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the house, and the defendants reside there without legal grounds and have alternative housing. The court also considered that eviction meets the proportionality criterion under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights Protection, as the sisters are not deprived of housing rights, having registered residence at other addresses.
Case No. 369/3056/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recognition of joint ownership and division of land plot and gas station built during marriage. The court was guided by the following: 1) land plot received by wife through privatization is her personal property; 2) it is impossible to terminate land ownership without compensation during marital property division; 3) to acquire land plot share, husband would have to preliminarily deposit monetary compensation for its value. The Supreme Court cancelled lower courts’ decisions on recognizing gas station as joint property and its division, rejecting the claim. The court noted that the plaintiff is not prevented from demanding monetary compensation for improvements to respondent’s property during marriage.
Case No. 404/4513/24 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute – motion to transfer criminal proceedings from Kirovskyi District Court of Kirovohrad to High Anti-Corruption Court. As this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide reasoning for its decision. Full text of the ruling with motivational part will be announced on December 23, 2024. The Supreme Court rejected the motion to transfer the case to the High Anti-Corruption Court.
Case No. 127/13959/20 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of Vinnytsia Appellate Court regarding a person convicted of providing improper benefit and theft. The court reviewed the cassation complaint of the defender filed on behalf of the convicted PERSON_7, who was found guilty of crimes under Part 1 of Article 369 (providing improper benefit to an official) and Part 4 of Article 185 (theft) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as they will be presented in the full text of the decision. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the Vinnytsia Appellate Court verdict unchanged.
Case No. 522/7252/21 dated 11/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court made procedural violations: did not verify proper notification of case participant PERSON_3 about the court session and groundlessly refused to open appellate proceedings, not taking into account that PERSON_3 was not served.Here is the translation:
Enclosed is a copy of the first instance court decision.
[Case No. 740/463/22 dated 11/12/2024]
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff has the right to compensation for damages, as he was acquitted by a court verdict; 2) the amount of moral damages (400,000 UAH) is justified by the prolonged period of investigation and trial, which led to disruption of normal life connections; 3) property damage (343,498 UAH) includes lost earnings during suspension from office and legal assistance expenses, which were documentarily confirmed.
[Case No. 344/17548/21 dated 11/12/2024]
The appellate court refused to deprive parental rights because: 1) there was no conclusive evidence of the father’s guilty behavior regarding child-rearing evasion; 2) the father objected to deprivation of rights and expressed a desire to participate in his son’s life; 3) the guardianship authority’s conclusion was insufficiently substantiated, as it did not consider the reasons for the father’s improper performance of duties. The court emphasized that mere non-payment of alimony is not grounds for depriving parental rights.
[Case No. 303/1797/19 dated 18/12/2024]
Subject of dispute: invalidation of property rights documents for a land plot and removal of obstacles in land plot use. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence regarding the boundaries, configuration, and linear measurements of her land plot; 2) no evidence was provided about the approval of land management technical documentation for establishing plot boundaries; 3) the fact of violating the plaintiff’s rights as a user of an adjacent land plot and the existence of obstacles in house use were not proven; 4) the plaintiff did not prove how the chosen method of protection would restore her violated rights. The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim.
[Case No. 760/7654/24 dated 18/12/2024]
Subject of dispute: PJSC “Ukrinkom” shareholders demanded compensation from the Russian Federation for damages of 78.2 million USD due to decreased value of their corporate rights as a result of military aggression. The court was guided by the following: 1) the company, not its shareholders, is the owner of the company’s property; 2) decrease in corporate rights value due to asset loss concerns the joint-stock company’s activities; 3) according to ECHR practice, a shareholder cannot be considered a proper applicant if the legal entity’s rights are violated; 4) a dispute between a legal entity and a foreign state regarding damage compensation is commercial, not civil. The court refused to open proceedings as the case is not subject to civil judicial review.
[Case No. 588/739/21 dated 13/11/2024]
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) no proper evidence was provided of land plot overlapping, as no land-technical expertise was conducted; 2) courts did not establish all circumstances regarding the legitimacy of increasing the respondent’s land plot area and reducing the plaintiff’s plot; 3) the city council lacks authority to restore land plot boundaries at its own expense, as this must be done by the interested party.
[Case No. 725/5919/19 dated 11/12/2024]
The cassation instance court noted that to declare trading invalid, a combination of threeCircumstances: violation of electronic auction rules, their impact on auction results, and violation of the rights of the person who applied to the court. The plaintiff merely stated the violation but did not prove how it affected their rights and auction results. Moreover, the claim to invalidate certificates of property acquisition from auctions is an improper method of rights protection, as such certificates do not create rights.
Case No. 154/3452/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the heir under the will was unaware of the existence of a will in their favor, as they were not in a family relationship with the testator and lived in another city. The notary who certified the will did not inform the heir about the opening of the inheritance and the existence of the will. Lack of awareness about the will’s existence is a valid reason for missing the deadline for accepting the inheritance.
Case No. 705/4950/20 dated 19/12/2024
The court established that the employer violated labor legislation by not offering the employee all available vacant positions during the period from notice of dismissal to the day of actual dismissal. In particular, two vacant forester positions and employment of 5 new employees for other positions that were not offered to the plaintiff were identified. The court also rejected the employer’s arguments about the employee’s non-compliance with qualification requirements as unfounded.
Case No. 758/2952/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court denied the claim, based on the following: 1) a preliminary purchase and sale agreement is not a basis for acquiring property rights to real estate; 2) the plaintiff did not prove payment for the specific obligation agreement they referred to; 3) the plaintiff did not make payments necessary to complete construction, while the facility’s completion was funded by housing cooperative members.
Case No. 569/19205/21 dated 16/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the court’s decision on confiscation of vehicles used as tools of crime. The cassation court found that the appellate court did not provide evidence that the vehicle owner knew or could have known about their illegal use. The appellate court did not provide reasoned responses to appeal complaints and did not clarify all important case circumstances. This violates criminal procedural legislation requirements, which provide for returning property to the owner if they did not know and could not have known about its illegal use. The Supreme Court partially satisfied cassation complaints, canceled the appellate court’s decision regarding vehicle confiscation, and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 758/16164/19 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the loan agreement contains signatures of both parties and the borrower’s handwritten note about receiving funds, and the defendant did not provide appropriate evidence to refute the contract signing fact. Although the defendant claimed the need for a handwriting examination, they did not pay for its conduct and subsequently did not file relevant motions. The court also considered that the penalty amount is subject to reduction in accordance with Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 560/904/15-ц dated 11/12/2024
The appellate court partially satisfied the bank’s claim and recovered the debt in dollarsHere is the translation of the provided legal text:
The court determined that the debt should be recovered in USD, not in hryvnia, as was initially decided by the court of first instance. The court proceeded from the fact that the bank had legally filed a motion to clarify the claims and requested recovery of the debt in the loan currency. Moreover, according to the Supreme Court’s practice, the court has the right to make a decision on recovering a monetary sum in foreign currency if this is provided for in the contract.
Case No. 295/7701/22 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for attempted theft. The cassation instance court reviewed the case and established that the law under which the person was convicted had become invalid. According to criminal procedural legislation, if an act has lost its status as criminally punishable, criminal proceedings are subject to termination. The court took into account the principle that a law that cancels or mitigates a person’s liability has retroactive effect in time. As a result, the Supreme Court revoked the decisions of previous instances and closed the criminal proceedings due to decriminalization of the act.
Case No. 761/11948/20 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the appellate court in a case of traffic safety rules violation resulting in serious consequences (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the ruling, noting only that the full text of the decision would be announced later. However, the decision shows that the court found no grounds to satisfy the defender’s cassation appeal and change the appellate court’s verdict. The Supreme Court left the Kyiv Appellate Court’s verdict of January 18, 2024, unchanged and the defender’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 688/4314/23 dated 18/12/2024
The appellate instance court refused to satisfy the claim because not all owners of land shares of the Agricultural Cooperative “Mriya” were involved in the case. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, as after January 1, 2019, the only basis for allocating such land plots in kind is the decision of the territorial community represented by the respective council, not all share owners. The court also noted that lawsuits regarding land sharing can be considered by courts where the defendants are Agricultural Cooperatives, state administrations, and local self-government bodies.
Case No. 991/6481/22 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing by the prosecutor of the acquittal verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s Appellate Chamber in a case of abuse of official position. The cassation instance court reviewed the prosecutor’s complaint against the lower instance courts’ decisions. Since this is only the operative part, full reasoning is not provided, but the court found grounds for partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal. The panel of judges decided that the case requires a new review in the appellate instance. As a result, the Supreme Court revoked the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s Appellate Chamber and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 681/456/23 dated 19/12/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that PERSON_2 applied for the land plot earlier than the plaintiff PERSON_1 (18.11.2019 versus 09.09.2020), and therefore had priority right to obtain it. The court also noted that permission to develop a land management project is not a title-establishing document and does not guarantee acquisition of ownership rights. After registering the ownership right for PERSON_2, the city council no longer had the authority to dispose of this plot.Case No. 953/8918/24 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of Review – Submission by the Chairman of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings against a group of persons accused of misappropriation of property and legalization of proceeds obtained through criminal means. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, such submissions are usually granted in cases where it is impossible to administer justice by a certain court due to objective circumstances (such as hostilities) or to ensure the safety of participants in the judicial process. The Supreme Court granted the submission and sent the criminal proceedings materials from the Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv to the Komsomolsk City Court of Poltava Region for consideration on the merits.
Case No. 990SCGC/20/24 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice to bring a judge of the Prymorskyy District Court of Odesa to disciplinary responsibility. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the motivational part, where the court’s legal positions and reasoning are usually set out. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court decided to leave the judge’s complaint unsatisfied and the challenged decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.
Case No. 712/5139/20 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Criminal prosecution of a gynecologist for improper performance of professional duties during childbirth, which led to the death of a newborn child. The court was guided by the fact that the doctor PERSON_10 did not conduct proper monitoring of the fetus condition during childbirth and performed a cesarean section late (after 22 minutes instead of the standard 15 minutes). This is confirmed by forensic medical expert conclusions, which established a direct causal link between the doctor’s actions and the child’s death due to asphyxia. The court also took into account that the doctor had the opportunity to monitor each fetus in turn using the available equipment but did not do so. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict recognizing the doctor guilty under Part 2 of Article 140 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which caused serious consequences to a minor) with a punishment of 3 years of restricted freedom with a probationary period of 2 years.
Case No. 753/3275/23 dated 11/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_1 obtained the right to privatize an apartment based on a court decision recognizing her as a tenant, which was later canceled by the Supreme Court. Since the property was alienated from the territorial community’s ownership without its will, and the legal relations of the property’s alienation from communal ownership are of public interest, the court found it lawful to recover the apartment from the good faith acquirer PERSON_2.
Case No. 357/4984/24 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that there is a real dispute between the parties regarding compensation for significant damages (over 1 million hryvnias), and the defendant owns valuable property (a land plot) that may be disposed of before the dispute is resolved. Imposing an arrest on the property is proportionate to the claimed requirements and necessary to ensure the possibility of executing the court’s decision in the future. At the same time, such arrest does not create an excessive burden for the defendant, as it does not deprive him of the ability to use the property.
Case No. 501/489/23 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of Dispute [text cut off]
