Case No. 914/587/23 dated 10/12/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) the fact of unlawful conduct by the executive service is confirmed by several court decisions; 2) the amount of compensation should be proportionate to the minimum wage; 3) part of the claims for compensation of moral damage to an individual is subject to consideration under civil proceedings.
Case No. 910/8888/23 dated 25/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the reasoning part of the first instance court’s ruling on returning the statement of claim without consideration in a case of recovering 360.9 million UAH in damages from bank officials. The court was guided by: 1) the challenged ruling had already been canceled on appeal by another person’s complaint, therefore there is no subject of appellate review; 2) cancellation of the ruling automatically means cancellation of its reasoning part; 3) reviewing the canceled court decision contradicts the principle of legal certainty (res judicata). The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on closing appellate proceedings due to the absence of a subject of appeal.
Case No. 1-123/2011 dated 26/12/2024
Subject of review – appointment of a criminal case for cassation review regarding a person sentenced to life imprisonment for intentional murder. The court was guided by: 1) the case concerns a particularly serious crime where legal representation is mandatory; 2) the convicted person filed a motion for personal participation in cassation review within the appeal period, which is mandatory for the court to execute according to the Criminal Procedure Code; 3) it is necessary to ensure the convicted person’s right to defense. The court ruled to schedule the case for cassation review, ensure legal representation, and transfer the convicted person for personal participation in the court session.
Case No. 910/8832/24 dated 20/12/2024
The first instance court returned the counterclaim, considering that it was not related to the original claim, as it arose from different legal relations and required investigation of different evidence. The appellate court agreed with this. However, the Supreme Court found such conclusions erroneous, since the counterclaim is aimed at refuting the grounds of the original claim by challenging the accuracy of commercial electricity metering data on which the claims for debt recovery are based.
Case No. 127/14958/24 dated 24/12/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s refusal to restore the time limit for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling onArrest of Documents of PJSC “Hnivan Special Reinforced Concrete Plant”
The court noted that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances of the case: the plant’s representative was unable to familiarize themselves with the full text of the ruling, as only the introductory and operative parts were announced in the court session. Moreover, their request for the full text of the decision was ignored by the court of first instance. The Supreme Court referred to its previous practice, according to which lack of awareness of the motives of the court decision may be a valid reason for reinstating the appeal period. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to properly assess the reasons for missing the appeal deadline.
Case No. 910/1834/19 dated 26/11/2024
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that according to Law No. 590-IX, the only way to protect the rights of former bank shareholders is compensation for damages in monetary form, not the return of shares. The court also took into account that the limitation of shareholders’ rights was justified in view of the public interest – maintaining the solvency of a systemically important bank and the stability of the financial system. At the same time, former owners are not deprived of the right to compensation for damages through court.
Case No. 185/5253/14-k dated 26/12/2024
The subject of consideration is a procedural issue regarding the appointment of cassation review of a criminal case based on cassation complaints from two convicted persons. The Supreme Court judge, having received the requested criminal case materials and verified them, established the need to schedule the case for cassation review with proper notification of all process participants. In doing so, the court was guided by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, which regulate the procedure for cassation proceedings. Based on the review results, the court ordered the cassation review of the case to be scheduled for June 12, 2025, with notification of all process participants.
Case No. 991/12645/24 dated 27/12/2024
The appellate court concluded that imposing an arrest on part of the property (land plot and residential house) and establishing a prohibition for the bank to make payments from a specific account is unjustified and disproportionate as a method of securing the claim. In doing so, the court took into account the balance of interests of the parties and the principle of proportionality of claim security to the stated requirements.
Case No. 908/2437/22 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiffs (declaring transactions invalid without a request to apply the consequences of invalidity) is ineffectiveSince the court is not capable of restoring their violated rights. The court noted that a claim to declare a transaction invalid can be effective only if it is combined with a claim to apply the consequences of invalidity (returning parties to their original state). Since the plaintiffs have already received money for their shares but did not file claims for restitution – such a method of protection will not lead to the restoration of their rights.
Case No. 754/6370/20 dated 24/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not provide proper justification for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (conditional release from serving a sentence). In particular, it did not properly assess the fact that the crime was committed in a state of alcoholic intoxication, which increases social danger, and that as a result of the traffic accident, one person died and another received serious bodily injuries. The court also noted that under such circumstances of the case and data about the convicted person, the application of conditional release from serving a sentence is incorrect.
Case No. 706/553/22 dated 18/12/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the order for granting land plot ownership and the certificate of land ownership, which was formed from the land rented by the plaintiff.
The court noted that since the 2-hectare land plot was formed from the 17.7105-hectare land plot rented by the plaintiff, and the lessee’s consent for its allocation was not obtained, this violates the plaintiff’s property rights as a land user. At the same time, the court pointed out that the formation of new land plots from rented land without the lessee’s consent contradicts the requirements of land legislation, in particular Articles 116, 118 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review to properly clarify all circumstances of the case, including the issue of statute of limitations.
Case No. 713/2583/22 dated 25/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the law does not prohibit close relatives of heirs from signing a will instead of the testator if he cannot do it independently. Restrictions on close relatives apply only to witnesses when certifying a will, but not to persons who sign the will on behalf of the testator (signatories). The court also noted that the role of the signatory is only to provide technical assistance to the testator and does not create any inheritance rights or obligations for such a person.
Case No. 501/2018/16-ц dated 25/12/2024
Subject of dispute – collection
