Case No. 910/21682/15 (910/17038/21) dated 20/12/2024
The court concluded that the state enterprise does not have the right to file a claim for recognition of state ownership and cancellation of municipal property registration, as such claims are aimed at protecting the state’s rights, not the enterprise’s rights. Such a claim can only be filed by an authorized state body or a prosecutor. At the same time, the court referred the issue of recognizing the enterprise’s right to permanent use of the disputed land plots for a new review, as previous courts did not properly establish the fact of acquiring this right.
Case No. 914/3681/23(442/3307/23) dated 13/01/2025
The court concluded that a warrant is an independent and sufficient document to confirm a lawyer’s powers in enforcement proceedings, as it is issued based on a legal assistance agreement and contains information about power limitations. Additional provision of an extract from the agreement is not mandatory, as the purpose of specifying power limitations is achieved by the warrant itself. The court also took into account that legislation was amended to avoid discrepancies between different laws’ requirements regarding documents confirming a lawyer’s powers.
Case No. 480/7252/23 dated 13/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Obligation of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine to issue a special permit for subsoil use for sand extraction.
Main court arguments: 1) After cancellation of a previously issued permit through a reversal of court decision execution, the State Geological Service’s obligation to review the company’s application was restored. 2) As of July 26, 2023, when the procedure for issuing permits without an auction expired, the application review period had not yet ended, so legal relations were considered ongoing. 3) After July 26, 2023, the State Geological Service had no authority to issue a permit without an auction, as new legislation did not provide for this.
Court decision: Claim for obliging permit issuance was rejected, as legislation at the time of case consideration no longer provided for obtaining a permit without an auction.
Case No. 911/2308/23 (369/4028/23) dated 13/01/2025
The appellate court returned the appeal to the appellant, indicating that they did not provide information about the date of receiving the contested decision. However, the Supreme Court established that the appellant clearly stated in both the appeal and the application for remedying deficiencies that they had not received the full text of the contested decision. Therefore, the appellate court incorrectly applied procedural norms and ignored the appellant’s important arguments, which contradicts the principle of fair judicial proceedings.
Case No. 160/28752/23 dated 13/01/2025
[Note: The last case text appears to be incomplete in the original message]Case No. 320/842/21 dated 13/01/2025
The purpose of the dispute is to challenge the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the non-implementation of pension indexation for the plaintiff in 2022-2023.
The court established that when conducting pension indexation, the average salary indicator used when determining the pension for a specific person should be applied, not the indicator as of October 1, 2017. The court also noted that Procedure No. 124 is subject to application only in the part that does not contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”. Additionally, the court took into account that the right to indexation is limited by a 6-month term for court appeal.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to carry out pension indexation for the plaintiff from May 2, 2023, using a coefficient of 1.197.
The court was guided by the fact that untimely receipt of a court decision is a valid reason for restoring the term for appellate review, and such term is subject to mandatory restoration if the appellate complaint is filed within 30 days from the date of actual decision delivery. Publication of the decision in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions does not cancel the court’s obligation to send decision copies to case participants, and the ability to learn about the decision from the register is only a right, not an obligation of the party.
Case No. 910/1/21 dated 07/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery from former bank executives, jointly and severally, of 145 million UAH in damages caused to the bank due to unreasonably risky credit operations.
The appellate court satisfied the application of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for securing the claim and imposed an arrest on all property and funds of the defendants within the claim amount. The court was guided by the fact that the defendants were actively alienating their property in favor of relatives after the dispute began, which indicates bad faith and the risk of impossibility of executing the court decision in the future. At the same time, the defendants did not prove the unreasonableness or disproportionality of such claim security measures.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution on imposing an arrest on the defendants’ property, as such claim security measures are proportionate to the stated requirements and necessary to guarantee real execution of the court decision if the claim is satisfied.
Case No. 911/1769/24 dated 13/01/2025
Subject of dispute: challenging the ruling on closing appellate proceedings in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Energomashshpetsstal”.
The court was guided by the fact that LLC “Stripe” did not have the right to appeal the ruling on opening bankruptcy proceedings, as it was not a participant in this case and did not prove that the appealed ruling directly concerned its rights and obligations. The court also noted that the status of an initiating creditor in another bankruptcy case of the same debtor does not automatically grant the right to appeal decisions.In this case. Moreover, the court indicated that closing the appellate proceedings does not deprive LLC ‘Stripe’ of the opportunity to appeal the ruling after obtaining the status of a competitive creditor in the manner prescribed by law. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on closing the appellate proceedings on the complaint of LLC ‘Stripe’.
Case No. 332/2290/24 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the claims cannot be considered identical, since in the first case, the employee substantiated the illegality of dismissal by the fact of mobbing, and in the new case – by the illegality of disciplinary action and violation of the dismissal procedure. The court emphasized that the non-identity of at least one element of the claim (parties, subject, or grounds) does not prevent re-addressing the court.
Case No. 200/9324/21 dated 13/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff’s application to declare the defendant’s actions regarding the execution of a court decision as unlawful was filed in a timely manner, as the non-execution of the court decision is of a continuing nature. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s active behavior aimed at executing the court decision and the state executor’s decision within the framework of the enforcement proceedings. It was important that the term for filing such an application cannot be calculated solely from a specific event, but should take into account a set of factors.
Case No. 440/17191/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) subsection 112.8.9 of paragraph 112.8 of Article 112 of the Tax Code of Ukraine is an independent basis for exemption from financial liability for tax offenses due to force majeure circumstances; 2) the existence of a special procedure for confirming the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations during martial law does not deprive the taxpayer of the right to prove the existence of force majeure on general grounds; 3) the plaintiff properly proved the existence of force majeure circumstances due to military actions, which is confirmed by a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Case No. 380/20679/23 dated 13/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns the legitimacy of reducing the pension for years of service from 55% to 50% of the monetary allowance for a former military serviceman – a participant in the liquidation of the Chernobyl accident consequences. The court noted that when recalculating the pension, the only variable is the amount of monetary allowance, whereas the percentage of the basic pension amount, determined at its appointment (55%), should remain unchanged. Therefore, the actions of the Pension Fund to reduce the percentage to 50% were unlawful. At the same time, the court pointed to the need to verify the plaintiff’s compliance with the terms of addressing the court, as the pensioner could have learned about the violation of his rights much earlier. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court.
