Case No. 824/91/24 dated 03/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – consideration of a divorce case. Since this decision contains confidential information and is prohibited from disclosure under paragraph 4, part 1, article 7 of the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions”, a detailed analysis of the court’s arguments is not possible. Such restrictions are established by law to protect the private life of the case participants, especially in family disputes. The result of the case consideration is also confidential and cannot be disclosed.
Case No. 560/2018/24 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Organization of the political party “Nash Krai” on making a proposal to recall a local council deputy by popular initiative. The court was guided by the fact that the decision of the local party organization’s meeting is only of a recommendatory nature and does not directly lead to the deputy’s recall, as the final decision is made by the party’s highest governing body. Such decisions belong to the internal organizational activities of the political party and its local organization and are their exclusive competence. Moreover, the local organization of a political party is not a subject of power authorities, and its decisions are not binding on government bodies or other persons. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the conclusions of lower instance courts that such a dispute is not subject to consideration under administrative proceedings.
Case No. 260/32/24 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – declaring the inaction of local self-government bodies regarding a land plot where burials were carried out, and recovery of moral damages. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to recover moral damages and maintaining the first instance court’s decision to recover 30,000 UAH of moral damages. The court also modified the motivational part of the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim about bringing the land plot back to its previous state. Based on the case review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the appellate court’s decision in terms of motives and canceling it in the part concerning moral damages.
Case No. 160/10591/24 dated 09/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the controlling body missed the statute of limitations (1095 days) for collecting part of the tax debt based on the declaration from 02.11.2017. The court took into account the periods of suspension of limitation periods during the COVID-19 quarantine and martial law but still established an overrun of the term by 20 days. Since the tax authority did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the term, the court found it legitimate to return the statement of claim in this part.
Case No. 949/1459/22 dated 08/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the decision of the exec…1) the city council’s decision to appoint the grandmother as a guardian was made in compliance with all procedures; 2) the children’s aunt illegally kept one of the children and hindered the guardian from performing her duties; 3) the aunt’s actions led to the separation of biological sisters, which contradicts the children’s interests and legislation prohibiting the separation of brothers and sisters when establishing guardianship.
Case No. 486/22/22 dated 12/06/2024
The court noted that to legally suspend an employee due to refusal of vaccination, an individual assessment of their job duties must be conducted, specifically evaluating the objective necessity of personal contacts with other people and the possibility of remote work. In this case, the employer did not conduct such an assessment, therefore the suspension was a disproportionate measure.
Case No. 600/1928/24-а dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute – securing the claim by suspending tax service orders on cancelling licenses for fuel, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco products trade. The court considered that license cancellation would lead to complete cessation of the company’s economic activity, inability to pay wages to 10 employees, inability to sell existing inventory worth over 90,000 hryvnias, and potential penalty sanctions for non-fulfillment of contractual obligations. The court also noted that suspending license cancellation orders is a temporary measure that does not resolve the dispute on merits but preserves the existing situation until case consideration. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instance courts’ decisions satisfying the claim for securing the lawsuit and suspending license cancellation orders.
Case No. 817/1310/18 dated 09/01/2025
The court established that the company received 823.658 tons of diesel fuel from the security company LLC “Rikkona” as compensation for lost fuel belonging to PJSC “South-West Transnaftoproduct”. Since the plaintiff was not the owner of the lost petroleum products and their supply did not occur in the understanding of the Tax Code, the court concluded there was no VAT taxation object and base when receiving such compensation.
Case No. 420/5142/23 dated 09/01/2025
The dispute subject concerns the legitimacy of refusing to open appellate proceedings on the tax authority’s complaint against the first instance court decision. The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority did not eliminate appellate complaint deficiencies within the established timeframe (did not pay court fees) and did not present new arguments not previously considered when reviewing another tax authority’s appellate complaint in the same case. The court noted that repeated consideration of the same arguments by different appellants is inadmissible, as it would lead to groundless repeated case review. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open.Proceedings of the Appellate Review, Recognizing It as Lawful and Substantiated.
Case No. 742/6063/23 dated 09/01/2025
The Appellate Court returned the appeal, considering that the lawyer did not confirm their powers, as the warrant did not specify the specific court name. However, the Supreme Court noted that the general wording ‘in courts’ in the warrant is sufficient to confirm the lawyer’s powers, and the requirement to specify a specific court is overly formalistic and creates unjustified obstacles to court access.
Case No. 320/5804/18 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions on penalty accrual for violating settlement terms in foreign economic activity. The court was guided by the following: 1) an arbitration court created under the Law “On Arbitration Courts” is not among the judicial bodies defined in Article 4 of the Law “On Procedure for Foreign Currency Settlements”, therefore its decision does not suspend penalty accrual; 2) the counterparty LLC “Krymtorg-S” is a non-resident of Ukraine, as it is registered in the Russian Federation, has a Russian director, and conducts settlements in Russian rubles, therefore operations with it are subject to foreign currency settlement requirements. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous instance courts’ decisions on the legality of tax authorities’ penalty accrual for violations of foreign economic settlement terms.
Case No. 160/23284/23 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute – non-payment of monetary allowance indexation to a State Emergency Service employee for the period from 2015 to 2020. The court was guided by the fact that from March 2018, when salary increases occurred, the plaintiff was entitled to receive the so-called “indexation difference” since the amount of income increase (736.83 UAH) was less than the possible indexation amount (4,463.15 UAH). The court also noted that for determining the right to indexation difference, it is irrelevant whether the consumer price index exceeded the indexation threshold of 103%. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, canceling the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to pay indexation for the period from March 2018 to June 2020 and maintaining the first instance court’s decision, which fully satisfied the claim.
Case No. 522/18134/21 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of assignment of claim rights under credit and mortgage agreements between banks and a financial company. The court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff’s credit obligations are not subject to the Law of Ukraine “On Moratorium on Property Foreclosure” since she owns other housing and is a civil servant; 2) the absence of borrower’s consent for creditor replacement is not grounds for declaring assignment of claim rights invalid; 3) the disputed agreements do not violate the plaintiff’s rights and interests, as she was not a party to them. The Supreme Court
