Case No. 420/3720/24 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – payment of additional remuneration to a serviceman in the amount of 120,000 UAH for the period from 24.02.2022 to 31.05.2022. The court was guided by the fact that the version of the Labor Code that was in effect before the changes of 01.07.2022 should be applied to claims for monetary compensation for the specified period, according to which an employee had the right to apply to court without time limitation. The court noted that the new version of the Labor Code, which limits the appeal period to three months, applies only to relations that arose after its entry into force on 19.07.2022. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on leaving the claim without consideration and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 990/356/24 dated 08/01/2025
The court established that the plaintiff did not provide documents confirming that her position as senior consultant was directly related to management and control of court activities. The High Council of Justice legally determined the total work experience of a judge as 25 years, 7 months, and 26 days, including only the confirmed work experience as a judge, work experience for appointment to a judge’s position, and half of the study period at a law school.
Case No. 320/12757/23 dated 09/01/2025
The appellate court left the claim without consideration due to missing the 6-month period for court appeal, without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to justify the valid reasons for missing the deadline. The Supreme Court pointed out that this violates the plaintiff’s procedural rights, as the court should have first provided an opportunity to file an application for deadline renewal, and only then decide on leaving the claim without consideration.
Case No. 160/11204/21 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: challenging a tax notification-decision on reducing the negative VAT amount by 1.6 million UAH. When making the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff provided a complete package of primary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions with contractors; 2) the plaintiff’s availability of necessary warehouse premises, vehicles, and personnel for economic activity; 3) the origin of the goods through the supply chain from importers to the plaintiff was documentarily confirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to cancel the tax notification-decision, recognizing it as unlawful.
Case No. 755/10941/22 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of illegal drug possession. Since the operative part of the ruling does not provide the reasoning part and the court’s arguments, it is impossible to determine the considerations that guided the Supreme Court in making the decision. The full text of the ruling is to be announced on January 13, 2025. The Supreme Court left the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 420/9992/24 dated 09/01/2025
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court improperly went beyond the scope of appellate review by independently raising the issue of missed court application deadlines, although the respondent did not raise this in their appellate complaint. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court may go beyond the arguments of the appellate complaint only in cases of violations that are mandatory grounds for overturning a decision, and missing the court application deadline is not among such grounds.
Case No. 560/4049/24 dated 09/01/2025
The court noted that the period of average wage payment should be divided into two stages: until July 19, 2022 (when the old version of the Labor Code was in effect without payment time limitation) and after (when a limitation of payment to 6 months was established). The courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly applied the law, limiting the entire payment period to 6 months and not taking into account the Supreme Court’s practice regarding different versions of Article 117 of the Labor Code.
Case No. 932/10417/23 dated 09/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that military servicemen are exempt from court fees only in cases related to the performance of military or official duties. In this case, the offense (non-payment for parking) was not related to the plaintiff’s performance of military service, therefore, he was not entitled to exemption from court fees when filing an appellate complaint. Since the plaintiff did not pay the court fee within the established time frame, the appellate court correctly returned the appellate complaint.
Case No. 480/11349/23 dated 09/01/2025
The court noted that sending a copy of the court decision to a representative (lawyer) is considered proper delivery of the decision to the plaintiff as well. Arguments about martial law and military service are not in themselves valid reasons for missing a deadline without providing specific evidence confirming the impossibility of timely appeal. The court also indicated that the relationship between a lawyer and a client regarding the conclusion of a new legal assistance agreement cannot be considered a valid reason for missing a procedural deadline.
Case No. 160/2598/20 dated 09/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that judicial control can be established only regarding a public authority entity against which the decision was not made. In this case, the city council, although a local self-government body, did not act as a public authority entity in the disputed legal relations, as it did not perform public administrative management functions. Moreover, the decision was made in favor of the tax service as a public authority entity, which excludes the possibility of establishing judicial control based on its application.
Case No. 1/7319/21 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – a large-scale scheme of misappropriating funds from energy supply companies through debt transfer and assignment of claims mechanisms. The court in its decision relied on the following key arguments. First, it was proven that the Chairman of the Board of PJSC “HC “Energomerezha” organized a criminal scheme involving officials of energy supply companies. Second, the mechanism of the crime was that electricity payments were transferred not to special accounts of energy companies, but to the accounts of PJSC “HC “Energomerezha”. Third, fictitious agreements on debt transfer and assignment of claims were used to implement the scheme, and the funds obtained were legalized through controlled companies.
Based on the case review, the court found the defendants guilty of criminal offenses related to misappropriation of property on a particularly large scale, abuse of official position, and legalization of proceeds obtained through criminal means.
Case No. 991/2051/24 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging a separate ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), which decided to refer to the High Council of Justice to bring a HACC judge to disciplinary responsibility. The Appellate Court found that the HACC judge violated ethical norms by casting doubt on a legitimate decision of a higher instance and suggesting that the appellate instance judges were misled. Additionally, the judge considered the case in the absence of the prosecutor and the suspect, whose participation was mandatory, thereby violating the principles of equality and adversarial nature of the parties. The Supreme Court left the separate ruling of the HACC Appellate Chamber unchanged and rejected the judge’s cassation appeal, agreeing with the grounds for disciplinary responsibility.
Case No. 826/4545/17 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the following: 1) the legitimacy of debt accrual was confirmed by previous court decisions; 2) the tax demand from 31.10.2014 was valid; 3) the tax authority proved the continuity of tax debt existence through integrated taxpayer cards; 4) in the presence of a tax debt, a new tax demand is not sent if the debt increases after sending the first demand.
Case No. 280/10862/23 dated 10/01/2025
The cassation instance court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly closed the proceedings in the case. Although there was a previous court decision regarding the plaintiff’s right to recalculate pension on preferential terms, in this case, new issues are being challenged – specific amount of supplement, overpayment calculation, and application of automatic recalculations. Therefore, this is a new dispute that can be considered in separate proceedings.
Case No. 2-596/2011 dated 27/12/2024
The appellate instance court refused to open appellate proceedings since the appellate complaint was filed 8 years after the first instance court decision, which significantly exceeds the one-year period for appeal.At this point, the court established that the respondent was properly notified about the case consideration and participated in the court session, and her references to health problems are not circumstances of force majeure that could justify missing the deadline.
Case No. 757/67729/21 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding a convicted Azerbaijani citizen for causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death (Part 2, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision but notes that the full text of the resolution will be announced later. It is worth noting that the case was considered with the participation of an interpreter, which is an important procedural guarantee for a foreign citizen. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of the defenders unsatisfied and the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.
Case No. 754/7543/22 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the following: 1) after the death of the borrower under the credit agreement, their rights and obligations pass to the heirs, but the mortgagor must provide consent to ensure the performance of the obligation by the new debtor; 2) since the mortgagor PERSON_1 did not provide such consent, the mortgage is subject to termination; 3) the guarantee was also terminated on February 22, 2016, due to the expiration of the 5-year period from the date of the loan repayment term.
Case No. 381/3425/22 dated 10/01/2025
The court established that the mortgagee (LLC ‘FC ‘Hephaestus’) properly notified the debtor of the intention to foreclose on the mortgage object by sending appropriate requirements by registered letters. The sale of the land plot was carried out in compliance with the requirements of Article 38 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On Mortgage’ – based on the property valuation conducted by an appraisal entity. The plaintiff’s arguments about underpricing and non-notification of creditor replacement were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance and therefore could not be grounds for canceling the decision.
Case No. 474/167/21 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of dispute – removal of obstacles in using a land plot of 5.23 hectares and cancellation of the registration of the property lease right. The court established that the additional agreement dated 17.08.2009 is not concluded, as it was signed after the lessor’s death. Other additional agreements did not come into force due to the lack of state registration. Since the respondent did not prove the existence of legal grounds for using the land plot, their actual possession is groundless. The state registrar violated the law requirements when registering the lease right by not properly checking the submitted documents and existing encumbrances. The court satisfied the claim – removed obstacles in using the land plot by returning it to the plaintiff and canceled the state registrar’s decision on registering the lease right for the respondent.
Case No. 369/8842/21 dated 10/01/2025
The court established
