Case No. 440/4083/22 dated 30/12/2024
The court noted that when examining the case, it is necessary to establish: 1) whether the price changes under additional agreements to procurement contracts were lawful; 2) whether market price fluctuations were documentarily confirmed as a basis for concluding additional agreements; 3) whether the total price increase did not exceed 10% of the initial contract price. The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate all these circumstances.
Case No. 600/2807/22-а dated 30/12/2024
The court established that the Road Service properly implemented the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision to cancel a bidder’s admission to the auction. Subsequently, the customer conducted a re-qualification of the participant, obtained additional clarifications from the bank regarding the bank guarantee, and legally re-admitted the participant to the bidding. These actions were confirmed by a subsequent Antimonopoly Committee decision.
Case No. 420/13235/24 dated 27/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Disciplinary Statute of the National Police of Ukraine, the term for appealing such orders is 15 days from the date of familiarization. The plaintiff missed this term by applying to the court 27 days later. The court did not recognize the reasons for missing the term (outpatient treatment and residence in the combat zone) as valid, as they were not objectively insurmountable and did not deprive the ability to timely apply to the court personally or through a representative.
Case No. 160/18988/23 dated 30/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings on the gas distribution company’s appeal against a fine decision. The court was guided by the fact that the company missed the term for appellate appeal and did not timely submit an application for its renewal. Although the company claimed to have sent such an application by courier service, the court did not accept this argument, as there were no proper evidence of sending, and the specified courier service was not registered as a postal communication operator. The court emphasized that the right to appeal is limited by terms to ensure legal certainty. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the legitimacy of the refusal to open appellate proceedings due to non-compliance with procedural terms.
Case No. 260/4518/23 dated 27/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly refused to open proceedings, as the respondent timely (within 10 days) sent by mail an application to renew the term for appellate appeal. The court also noted that excessive formalism in applying procedural norms may violate a person’s right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case No. 640/1934/20 dated 30/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the personnel commission’s decision on unsuccessful certification was unfounded and unmotivated, as the commission merely formally referred to doubts about the prosecutor’s integrity and competence, without providing specific evidence and motives. Meanwhile, the plaintiff successfully passed previous certification stages, including testing on knowledge of legislation. The court also noted that a decision on unsuccessful certification must contain clear and understandable motives, not just general formulations.
Case No. 160/14678/23 dated 30/12/2024
The first and appellate instance courts closed the proceedings, considering that the case was not subject to consideration under administrative legal proceedings. They concluded that such compensation is not an authoritative management function. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the military unit is a subject of authority in the sphere of accrual and payment of indexation of monetary support to military personnel, and disputes between participants of these relations are public-legal.
Case No. 420/3553/23 dated 30/12/2024
The court established that the violations identified by the State Audit Service were formal and did not affect the procurement results. In particular, one of the winners (LLC “Taste Factory”) made a technical error by providing an old medical book of an employee instead of a new one with current medical examination dates. Another winner (LLC “Olga”) had an employee in the position of production manager who could perform the functions of a cook.
