Case No. 404/1319/23 dated 09/01/2025
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court made significant procedural law violations, as it did not provide proper assessment of all arguments in the convict’s appeal, did not substantiate the refusal to re-examine evidence, and did not consider objections to the first instance court’s ruling on refusing to return the indictment to the prosecutor.
Case No. 755/14815/23 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance and appellate court’s verdict regarding conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The court in making its decision was guided by: 1) crimes against sexual integrity of minors pose a special public danger and can cause serious harm to victims’ mental health; 2) the accused had previously been released on probation but committed a new crime; 3) payment of 300 USD to the victim cannot be considered full moral damage compensation given the nature of the crime. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, only crediting the convicted person with the period of house arrest at a rate of three days of arrest per one day of imprisonment.
Case No. 534/1241/22 dated 09/01/2025
The court considered that after amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses on 09/08/2024, the property value threshold for qualifying theft as a criminal offense was raised. Since in most episodes the stolen property value did not exceed the established threshold, these acts are no longer considered criminal offenses. The court also took into account mitigating circumstances – sincere remorse, young age of the convicted person, and having a minor child under care.
Case No. 204/2655/23 dated 09/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person did not demonstrate sincere remorse, attempted to avoid responsibility and tried to transfer the case to civil law relations. Although the convicted person compensated for damages, this was interpreted as an attempt to avoid criminal liability. The court also considered that the crime was terminated due to circumstances beyond the accused’s control.
Case No. 274/1087/20 dated 09/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Appealing the verdict regarding conviction for rape of a minor. The court in making its decision was guided by the following arguments: 1) The convict’s guilt is confirmed by a set of evidence – victim’s testimony, witness statements, investigation experiment results and expert examinations; 2) Defense arguments about evidence inadmissibility due to violation of the right to defense during detention were deemed unfounded, as evidence was obtained legally; 3) Statements about ineffective defense and pressure on the accused by law enforcement were not confirmed. The Supreme Court rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, which confirmed the verdict sentencing the person to 11 years imprisonment for raping a minor.
Case No. 161/8760/22 dated 09/01/2025
The court considered that after the verdict was issued, a law came into effect that decriminalized petty theft up to 2,481 UAH. Therefore, the court closed proceedings regarding three theft episodes for small amounts, and reclassified two episodes from theft to illegal entry into housing or other property.i. At the same time, the court refused to mitigate the punishment, as the convicted person had previously been repeatedly brought to criminal liability and committed a number of intentional mercenary crimes.
Case No. 910/15094/23 dated 15/01/2025
The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, believing that the norms of the Civil Code on the invalidity of transactions cannot be applied to the disputed relations, as the contract regulates labor relations. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this conclusion, noting that the selection of a member of the company’s executive body is, by its legal nature, a corporate rather than labor legal relationship, and therefore the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine on the invalidity of transactions can be applied to it.
Case No. 280/4109/21 dated 16/01/2025
The court, when rendering a decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the taxpayer provided a complete package of primary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions; 2) the absence of basic assets and labor resources at the counterparty does not in itself prove the unreality of operations; 3) a bona fide taxpayer cannot be responsible for tax discipline violations by its counterparty if its direct participation in abuses is not proven.
Case No. 380/7994/24 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court showed excessive formalism, not taking into account that the customs office: 1) first filed an appellate complaint in a timely manner, 2) quickly eliminated deficiencies after its return and resubmitted the complaint, 3) demonstrated a bona fide procedural behavior. The court also noted that the right to appeal should not be limited too formally, and specific circumstances of the case should be taken into account.
Case No. 923/69/22 dated 16/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a transaction between PJSC ‘Ukratomenerhobudʹ and the Infrastructure Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the decision (only the introductory and operative parts), it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the court in making the decision, as the motivational part of the resolution is absent. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of the Infrastructure Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration unsatisfied and left the additional resolution of the South-Western Commercial Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 440/7214/23 dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that representative Kobeliatska M.A. had the right to act on behalf of the Treasury Service in the manner of self-representation, which is confirmed by information from the Unified State Register. The court also noted that in case of doubts about the representative’s powers, the appellate court could have verified them through the register or requested additional documents, rather than returning the complaint.
Case No. 140/15464/21 dated 16/01/2025
The cassation instance court noted that the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper assessment of evidence regarding the fact of moral damage and the causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiffs’ suffering. The amount of compensation of 100,000 UAH to each plaintiff was also not substantiated. The court emphasized that the principle of official clarification of all case circumstances requires an active role of the court in establishing all facts to make a fair decision.Case No. 240/182/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the Law No. 1584-IX adopted in 2021 established lower pension amounts than those previously provided by existing legislation. This violated the right to an adequate level of social protection for Chornobyl disaster victims. Therefore, the court decided to apply the norms of the previous law, which provided for a pension payment of 8 minimum old-age pensions.
Case No. 240/33017/23 dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the Law No. 1584-IX adopted by the Verkhovna Rada established lower pension amounts than previously provided, thereby violating the right to an adequate level of social protection for Chornobyl disaster victims. Therefore, the norms of the law in the previous version, which provided for a pension of 6 minimum old-age pensions for Group III disabled persons, should be applied to the disputed legal relations. The court also took into account the legal positions outlined in similar cases of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 160/15650/24 dated 15/01/2025
The court of cassation instance established that the courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly closed the proceedings in the case, considering it identical to a previously considered case. Although the previous case concerned only the issuance of a certificate of monetary support and calculation of basic salaries, the current dispute relates to new legal relations regarding the correct calculation of additional types of monetary support and bonuses. Therefore, these cases are not identical, and the new case is subject to consideration on the merits.
Case No. 580/9865/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for applying to court without valid reasons. Since the pension is a monthly payment, the plaintiff should have known about the violation of her rights monthly and timely seek protection. Passive behavior and applying only in 2024 regarding payments for 2015-2020 cannot be grounds for reinstating the missed term.
Case No. 308/8113/20 dated 15/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s challenge to the order changing the land plot’s purpose from agricultural to residential construction. The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor missed the 3-month term for applying to court from the moment it became known about the violation (July 2019). The court considers that the entry into legal force of a criminal case verdict (June 2020) is not the start of the term for applying to court. The prosecutor did not prove valid reasons for missing the term. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions to return the prosecutor’s statement of claim due to missed court application term.
Case No. 362/6138/23 dated 15/01/2025
The court noted that the previous instance courts did not establish important factual circumstances of the case, in particular: whether the writ of execution is pending at the Vasylkiv State Enforcement Service, or whetherWhether the enforcement proceedings have been completed, whether the writ of execution has been returned to the creditor, and what is the creditor’s opinion regarding the execution of the court decision. Without clarifying these circumstances, it is impossible to make a legal and substantiated decision.
[Case No. 183/4342/13-ц dated 08/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – issuance of a duplicate writ of execution in a case of debt collection under a credit agreement. The court, when considering the case, was guided by the fact that at the time of the applicant’s request for a duplicate writ of execution (April 2023), the moratorium on seizure of property from citizen-borrowers under foreign currency loans had already expired (September 23, 2021). Therefore, the application for a duplicate is considered to be filed within the time limit for presenting an executive document for execution. Lower courts did not take this circumstance into account and did not properly verify the evidence of loss of the original executive document. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower courts and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
[Case No. 910/18166/20 dated 13/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that LLC “Bigkomerts” did not have the right to appeal, since the assignment of claim rights agreement it referred to came into effect only from 01.01.2021, that is, after the challenged ruling of 09.12.2020. The court also took into account that a person can appeal a court decision only if it directly concerns their rights and obligations at the time of its adoption.
[Case No. 580/4079/23 dated 16/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that certificates from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry about force majeure circumstances are not primary documents confirming tax reporting indicators. Therefore, the fact that they were not provided during the inspection does not prevent their consideration by the court. Since the period of force majeure circumstances confirmed by certificates covers the entire period of settlement delays, this is a basis for exemption from liability.
[Case No. 922/3448/23 dated 14/01/2025]
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) legal assistance expenses must be real, necessary, and reasonable; 2) since the case is partially sent for a new review, part of the expenses should be distributed by the court that will make the final decision; 3) expenses related to the closed cassation proceedings are subject to recovery from the defendant.
[Case No. 904/5963/23 dated 16/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – recognition of a notary’s executive inscription as not subject to execution in a lawsuit by LLC “Ertanz” against LLC “Porsche Leasing Ukraine”. The court reviewed the cassation complaint of LLC “Ertanz” against the decisions of previous instances. Since the resolution does not provide details of the motivational part, one can only state that the court agreed with the conclusions of lower courts and found no grounds for cancellation or modification of the challenged court decisions. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint without satisfaction and the challenged court decisions unchanged.
[Case No. 903/62/23 dated 15/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – complaint by JSC ‘Volyngaz’ against the inaction of a private executor regarding non-removal of arrest from funds and non-suspension of enforcement actions in enforcement proceedings for collection of 77.7 million UAH. The court was guided by the fact that corporate rights of JSC ‘Volyngaz’ were transferred to the management of the National Agency of Ukraine for Identification, Search and Management of Assets.According to the law, a private executor does not have the right to enforce decisions regarding enterprises where the state’s share exceeds 25%. Since the transfer of management to the National Agency increased the state’s share in Volyn Gas JSC to more than 25%, the private executor did not have the authority to open enforcement proceedings and impose an arrest on the debtor’s funds. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of Volyn Gas JSC, canceled the decisions of previous court instances, and obliged the private executor to remove the arrest from the debtor’s funds and stop enforcement actions.
[Case No. 910/15808/19 dated 15/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – a bank’s recovery of debt from a pharmaceutical company under a credit agreement in the amount of 381 million UAH. The appellate court closed the appellate proceedings on complaints from two shareholders of the pharmaceutical company, as they were not a party to the dispute regarding the credit agreement, and the contested decision did not directly relate to their rights and obligations. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that shareholder status does not automatically grant the right to appeal company case decisions – one must prove that the court decision directly concerns the shareholder’s rights or obligations. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on closing the appellate proceedings on shareholders’ complaints.
[Case No. 990/131/24 dated 16/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – the Advisory Group of Experts’ refusal to provide public information upon a citizen’s request. The court was guided by legislation on access to public information, which requires information holders to respond to citizens’ information requests. Refusal to provide information must be substantiated and comply with legal requirements. In this case, the refusal was unsubstantiated, violating the plaintiff’s right to access public information. The court fully satisfied the claim – recognizing the refusal as unlawful and obliging the Advisory Group of Experts to reconsider the plaintiff’s request.
[Case No. 240/10092/22 dated 16/01/2025]
The court was guided by the principle that when transferring from an age pension under the Law on Local Self-Government Service to an age pension under the Law on Mandatory Pension Insurance, the same average wage indicator should be applied as at the time of initial pension assignment. This is explained by the fact that in both cases, it concerns the same type of pension – an age pension, albeit under different laws. The court also referenced a similar position outlined in a previous Supreme Court decision.
[Case No. 640/30032/21 dated 16/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – challenging the inaction of the National Police of Ukraine regarding non-consideration of an application for one-time monetary assistance to a police officer due to disability. The court was guided by the fact that at the time of the plaintiff’s application, legislation did not provide for the possibility of returning documents for revision. The police were obligated to verify document formatting upon receipt, and if necessary, contact the source for verification. Instead, the police improperly returned documents due to improper certification of copies. The court partially satisfied the claim – recognizing the police’s inaction as unlawful and obliging them to consider the application on its merits.
[Case No. 200/1564/24 dated 16/01/2025]
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that additional remuneration of up to 300…0 UAH, which is paid during martial law, has a temporary nature, is not constant, and is determined by commanders’ orders. By its legal nature, it is a one-time additional type of monetary provision that is not included in the list of payments taken into account when calculating a pension. At the same time, the mere fact of paying a single contribution from this payment is not grounds for its inclusion in the pension calculation.
Case No. 580/1226/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court established that the State Treasury Service of Ukraine executed the court decision by providing the plaintiff with a written response to his questions regarding entering data into the Register of Decisions and familiarizing himself with the case materials. The fact that the response was signed by an authorized person (director of the legal department) rather than the head, and that the plaintiff does not agree with the content of the response, is not grounds for canceling the order to terminate the enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 361/879/13-ц dated 09/01/2025
When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that the circumstances cited by the applicant (resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 21.02.2019, additional decision of the Kyiv Oblast Court of Appeal dated 24.10.2017, inclusion of the LLC in the register in 2017, and the ECtHR decision in the case “Burmych and Others v. Ukraine”) arose after the challenged decision was made and are not newly discovered circumstances within the meaning of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Only circumstances that existed at the time of the case consideration but were not and could not have been known to the applicant can be considered newly discovered.
Case No. 380/12541/22 dated 15/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by tax authorities of two regions to LLC “Navigator Grain Expo”. Since only the introductory and operative parts are provided in the document, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court. However, it can be concluded that the company’s position was sufficiently substantiated, as courts of three instances (first, appellate, and cassation) supported the taxpayer’s position. The Supreme Court decided to leave the tax authorities’ cassation complaints unsatisfied and upheld the decisions of previous instances in favor of the taxpayer.
Case No. 910/9262/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that although the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv does not have the status of a legal entity, it is a separate subdivision of the State Tax Service of Ukraine and a state authority. According to the legislation, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Central Executive Authorities” and the Tax Code of Ukraine, such an authority has the right to go to court and be a party to legal proceedings. The court also took into account that the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv is the legal successor of the property, rights, and obligations of the previous body.
Case No. 910/1911/24 dated 16/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is recovering funds from the Public Association “Ukrainian Music Alliance” in favor of LLC “MTI”. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court from the provided text, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the motivational part, where the legal positions and court reasoning are usually set out. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint of the Public Association “Ukrainian Music Alliance” and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 914/1966/23 dated 16/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is recognition of additionalAddendum to the Natural Gas Transportation Agreement between JSC “Lvivgaz” and LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”. The court reviewed the cassation appeal on two grounds provided by paragraphs 1 and 3 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. For the first ground, cassation proceedings were closed as it was not confirmed. Regarding the second ground, the court did not find violations of procedural law or incorrect application of substantive law by the appellate court that could be grounds for canceling the contested decision.
The Supreme Court left the resolution of the Western Appellate Commercial Court unchanged and denied satisfaction of the cassation appeal by JSC “Lvivgaz”.
[Case No. 160/8280/23 dated 16/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that according to legislation, street renaming must occur only after public consultation. The City Council violated this requirement by not ensuring consultation with the community, although it could have conducted it even during martial law through internet conferences or electronic consultations. Such procedural violation deprived street residents of their right to participate in decision-making.
[Case No. 160/939/24 dated 16/01/2025]
Subject of dispute: challenging the customs decision on adjusting the customs value of imported goods.
The cassation instance court established that previous courts did not properly investigate all case circumstances. Specifically, they did not verify the customs decision’s compliance with legal requirements regarding justification of the adjusted customs value, did not examine evidence of customs clearance for identical goods, and did not assess selective adjustment of customs value for only part of goods from one shipment. Additionally, they did not consider that some customs decisions referenced were already canceled by court in another case.
The Supreme Court canceled decisions of first and appellate instances and referred the case for new consideration to the district administrative court.
[Case No. 620/4223/24 dated 15/01/2025]
Subject of dispute – recalculation and payment of monetary provision to a serviceman for the period from October 1 to December 10, 2020.
The cassation instance court noted that at the time of plaintiff’s dismissal (December 2020), the Labor Code version did not limit the timeframe for filing a lawsuit for wage recovery. Therefore, the appellate court incorrectly applied the new 2022 Labor Code version establishing a 3-month limitation period to earlier legal relations. The court also referenced similar legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and other Supreme Court decisions in similar cases.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s resolution leaving the claim without consideration and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
[Case No. 240/726/24 dated 15/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that Law No. 1584-IX, which established fixed pension amounts for Chornobyl victims, violates their constitutional rights to adequate social protection, as it provides smaller payments than previously. Therefore, the previous law version guaranteeing a pension of 8 minimum age pensions for disability group II should be applied. The court also considered numerous similar Supreme Court decisions in comparable cases.
[Case No. 240/33985/23 dated 15/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that Law No. 1584-IX, which established fixed pension amounts for Chornobyl victims…Regarding the provided text, here are the translations of the court case summaries:
Case No. 179/1515/23 dated 15/01/2025:
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that although the original lease agreement was signed by the owner’s mother without his consent, subsequently the owner personally signed additional agreements to this contract, received rent, and actually recognized the existence of lease relations for a long time (over 17 years). The court also took into account the principle of good faith – the plaintiff’s behavior, who initially recognized the contract through its execution and then tried to challenge it, contradicts good faith and honest business practice.
Case No. 240/31239/23 dated 16/01/2025:
The court in its decision was guided by the following: 1) the additional remuneration introduced by CMU Resolution No. 168 is a temporary payment for the period of martial law and belongs to the category of remunerations; 2) according to Procedure No. 260, remunerations are not included in the calculation of health improvement cash assistance; 3) indexation has a systematic nature and should be taken into account when calculating such assistance.
Case No. 580/6975/24 dated 16/01/2025:
The cassation instance court established that after eliminating the deficiencies of the counterclaim (lack of a clear petitive part), the entrepreneur properly stated the subject of the claim, substantiation, and evidence. In particular, the challenged tax decisions and requirements were clearly specified, the violation of the tax benefit right as a person with disability was explained, and relevant documents were added. The courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly applied procedural law by returning the corrected counterclaim.
Case No. 990/337/24 dated 15/01/2025:
Subject of dispute: challenging the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and demanding to perform certain actions. Unfortunately, from the provided introductory and operative parts of the decision, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as the motivational part of the decision is absent. The document states that the full decision will be compiled within five days after the completion of the case consideration. The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in full.
Case No. 240/1525/24 dated 15/01/2025:
The court was guided by the fact that the Law No. 1584-IX adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, which established lower pension amounts for Chornobyl victims, violates their constitutional rights to proper social protection. Therefore, the previous version of the law, which provided for the payment of 8 minimum pensions by age for disabled persons of group II, should be applied. The court referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
Case No. 240/711/24 dated 15/01/2025:
The court was guided by the fact that Law No. 1584-IX dated 29.06.2021, which established fixed pension amounts for Chornobyl victims, contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and does not ensure an adequate level of social protection for those affected. Therefore, the previous version of the law, which provided for a pension of 8 minimum pensions by age for disabled persons of group II, should be applied. The Supreme Court referred to similar conclusions in numerous similar cases.
