Case No. 909/1218/15 dated 14/01/2025
The court established that during construction, significant violations of construction norms were committed – access to the gas pipeline was blocked, load on the neighboring house’s roof was increased, fire prevention barriers were absent, chimney pipes were in the wind pressure zone, and evacuation exit was limited. Additionally, construction was carried out without proper permit documents, as the declaration of construction commencement was canceled due to inaccurate information. Previous instance courts did not take into account that the land plot was provided for a store construction, not a residential building.
Case No. 360/815/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that a pension is a monthly periodic payment, so its amount is known to the recipient. The plaintiff could have learned about the violation of her rights as early as 2021 when she received pension payments, but filed a lawsuit only in 2023, missing the 6-month court appeal period. Moreover, she did not provide valid reasons for missing this period and did not file a request to restore it.
Case No. 140/6001/24 dated 21/01/2025
The cassation instance court noted that previous instance courts did not take into account the requirements of paragraph 44.6 of Article 44 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, according to which a taxpayer’s failure to provide documents during an inspection is equivalent to their absence at the time of reporting. The courts also did not properly investigate evidence regarding the tax authority’s procedure for sending inspection documents.
Case No. 18/2694/11(917/1207/23) dated 16/01/2025
The court established that although the property was indeed transferred to the enterprise under the right of economic management, the State Property Fund as the defendant did not violate the plaintiff’s rights. The problem lies in the fact that the previous management body (Ministry of Economy) did not provide the necessary information for entering the object into the Unified Register of State Property, without which state registration of ownership and the derivative right of economic management is impossible. The plaintiff’s chosen method of protection (recognition of rights) does not solve the problem, as it nullifies the legally established procedure for registering state property.
Case No. 761/23289/21 dated 15/01/2025
The court established that the employer violated the dismissal procedure because: did not offer the employee all available vacant positions; did not properly consider the employee’s applications for transfer to other positions; did not conduct a comparative analysis of labor productivity and employee qualifications; did not obtain the trade union’s consent for dismissal. The court also took into account the plaintiff’s 22-year work experience and numerous awards for high work performance.
Case No. 925/249/22 dated 20/01/2025
The court refused to replace the debtor because: 1) no evidence was provided of the legal entity-debtor’s termination through reorganization or liquidation; 2) the fact of obtaining ownership of an apartment does not indicate the transfer of all rights and obligations from the previous owner; 3) LLC ‘U-HOUSE’ continues to exist and is not in the process of termination.
Case No. 910/8275/24 dated 20/01/2025
The court, when making a decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) PERSON_2 was the manager of inherited property for only 17 days, after which management passed to the deceased’s mother; 2) [the text is cut off]The claimant has already received a certificate of inheritance and has the opportunity to independently change the company’s director through legal means; 3) the requested interim measures would effectively block the company’s economic activity and would be equivalent to satisfying the claims.
Case No. 915/1402/14 dated 20/01/2025
The court refused to open appellate proceedings because LLC “Tavria-Agro” missed the annual deadline for appealing the first instance court decision. The court indicated that the mere fact of martial law is not an unconditional basis for reinstating the deadline – specific circumstances that prevented filing the complaint on time must be proven. The company failed to prove that martial law actually hindered its ability to appeal the decision, especially since it had previously filed an appellate complaint that was returned due to unresolved deficiencies.
Case No. 914/70/22(914/797/24) dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the employer improperly did not apply coefficients provided for in sectoral agreements when calculating wages, used an understated minimum wage, and did not documentarily prove the existence of financial difficulties that would allow temporary wage reduction. The court also took into account that the annexes to collective agreements, by which the employer tried to justify wage reduction, were not registered in the prescribed manner.
Case No. 918/209/24 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute: obligation to provide notarized consent for dividing a land plot of 7.6824 hectares, which is in the permanent use of the defendant. The court in its decision was guided by the following arguments: 1) The principle of unity of the legal fate of a land plot and real estate objects on it means that land plot use under a real estate object cannot be carried out by anyone other than the real estate owner. 2) The absence of consent from the permanent land user cannot exclude the possibility of the real estate owner registering land rights. 3) Article 149 of the Land Code of Ukraine on land plot withdrawal does not apply to such legal relations. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for new consideration to the first instance court.
Case No. 910/1191/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court established that the customer unreasonably refused to sign completed work acceptance certificates without providing a motivated refusal. At the same time, the amount of travel expenses for employees included in the certificates did not exceed the amount agreed by the parties in the contract. The fact of work performance is confirmed by the work acceptance certificate signed by both parties. The court also took into account that the customer, in violation of the law, evaded accepting the work without stating any deficiencies.
Case No. 916/1126/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court established that although the plaintiff was not properly notified about the meeting, this is not an unconditional basis for canceling the decision. The key point is that the decision was made with a quorum (more than 2/3 of co-owners’ votes), the plaintiff did not prove a violation of their rights or providing unfair advantages to other co-owners, and canceling the decision would create legal uncertainty for the entire OSBB regarding already paid contributions for the past period.
Case No. 915/559/24 dated 14/01/2025
The court took into account that the elevator issued orders for the sale of disputed grain to repay storage debtHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
He kept [the property] and placed an advertisement for its sale. This creates a real threat of alienation of property and the impossibility of its return to the owner in the future. Therefore, the court found it justified to impose an arrest on the disputed grain as a measure to secure the claim, as it is proportionate to the stated requirements and necessary to guarantee the execution of a possible court decision.
[Case No. 903/1299/23 dated 14/01/2025]
The appellate court dismissed the claim, believing that the hydraulic structure is not an independent real estate object, but merely an accessory to the main thing (land plot). However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the issue of the location of the hydraulic structure on the disputed plot, its size and purpose, and whether the entry of information about the hydraulic structure in the Unified Register of State Property Objects indicates its registration, was not properly investigated.
[Case No. 215/7881/23 dated 20/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of intentional serious bodily harm (Part 1, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court took into account the circumstances of the case and concluded that the convicted person could be corrected without actual serving of the sentence. An important factor was that the convicted person is serving military service, so supervision during the probation period is entrusted to the military unit commander. The court also established a number of obligations for the convicted person, including a prohibition on leaving the country without approval. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaints, modifying the appellate court’s verdict and releasing the convicted person from serving the sentence with a 3-year probation.
[Case No. 910/3006/24 dated 21/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is an obligation to perform certain actions, filed by LLC ‘Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine’ against JSC ‘Ukrainian Construction and Investment Bank’ represented by its liquidator. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the court decision, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the resolution is provided without the reasoning part. The court referred to Articles 300, 308, 309, 315 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which regulate the general procedure for cassation review. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
[Case No. 916/856/24 dated 15/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a non-residential premises with an area of 462.8 sq.m in a building on Pushkin Street, 2 in Odesa from the illegal possession of the Public Organization ‘Good Deeds’ in favor of the territorial community. The court established that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to clarify whether the apartments in this building were privatized. If the apartments are not privatized – the premises belong to the territorial community; if privatized – it is the common property of residents as an auxiliary premises of the building. Since the courts of previous instances did not investigate these important circumstances, their decisions were canceled. The Supreme Court sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to fully clarify all the circumstances of the case.
[Case No. 914/3142/15 dated 14/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of real estate (shooting range buildings) from the illegal possession of the Communal Institution of Lviv Regional Council ‘School of Higher Sports Mastery’ in favor of the state represented by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. The main arguments of the court: 1) The courts did not properly establish whether the disputed property is actually1) The court did not properly investigate the issue of state property ownership, which is key to determining the appropriate method of protecting the violated right. 2) The issue of statute of limitations was not adequately examined, specifically when the plaintiffs could have learned about the violation of their right. 3) An assessment of compliance with the principle of proportionality in interference with property rights in accordance with the ECtHR practice was not conducted. Court decision: The cassation complaint was partially satisfied, the decisions of the previous courts were canceled, and the case was referred for a new review to the court of first instance to establish all important circumstances of the case.
Case No. 902/115/22 dated 20/01/2025
The court refused to satisfy the application for review, as the circumstances cited by the applicant (seizure of land plots in previous years and the existence of a court decision in another case) do not meet the characteristics of newly discovered circumstances – they were either known to the applicant earlier or do not affect the essence of the dispute regarding the illegality of the village council’s decisions on disposing of a specific land plot. The court emphasized that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances cannot be used for a repeated review of the case or re-evaluation of evidence.
Case No. 914/1817/23 dated 16/01/2025
The cassation instance court noted that the lower courts incorrectly limited themselves to only checking the registrar’s procedural compliance, without investigating the legality of the grounds for making an entry about the termination of a legal entity and its impact on the plaintiff’s rights. When considering such disputes, the court must verify not only the registrar’s actions but also the legality of the liquidation procedure itself.
Case No. 916/1964/23 dated 14/01/2025
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the requisition order for the property was canceled by another order from the military unit commander, with a decision to return the vehicle to its owner. Since the property is in the possession of the Special Purpose Rescue Squad and was not returned to the owner despite the cancellation of the grounds for its seizure, the court concluded that it should be returned.
Case No. 914/3483/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court established that the property was located in warehouses in the Kherson region, which was occupied by Russian troops. The loss of property did not occur through the defendant’s fault, but as a result of Russian military aggression. According to the law, compensation for such damage should be made by the aggressor state (Russia), not by a Ukrainian enterprise. Therefore, LLC ‘Partner Distribution’ is an improper defendant in the case.
Case No. 332/1225/20 dated 16/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding illegal seizure of a vehicle (Part 1 of Article 289 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is clear that the Supreme Court reviewed the defender’s cassation complaint in full and found no grounds for its satisfaction and cancellation of previous court decisions. The Supreme Court left the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the defender’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 400/11565/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) special legislation on the State Bureau of Investigation does not contain clear norms regarding compensation for unused leave from previous years, therefore, general labor legislation norms are applied.1) Upon termination, the employee must be paid compensation for all unused vacation days; 2) a one-time monetary assistance upon dismissal by mutual agreement is not provided by law, as there is no such ground in the exhaustive list.
Case No. 804/11314/15 dated 15/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the Plaintiff’s counterparties showed signs of fictitiousness and were terminated; 2) the counterparties’ possession of necessary resources for conducting economic transactions was not confirmed; 3) primary documents had significant deficiencies in execution; 4) the systematic conclusion of assignment agreements indicated the absence of real intentions to make payment.
Case No. 910/1967/24 dated 21/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Obolon District State Administration in Kyiv to perform certain actions based on the lawsuit of LLC ‘TC ‘Astonish Ukraine’. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court and found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC ‘TC ‘Astonish Ukraine’. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided without the reasoning part. Based on the case review, the Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 922/2640/23 dated 16/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns recognizing monetary claims of creditor LLC “Livain Torg” to debtor LLC “Refill” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 33.3 million UAH under a returnable financial assistance agreement. The courts of first and appellate instances partially recognized the creditor’s claims for 23.5 million UAH, refusing to recognize the remaining 8.5 million UAH on the grounds that the term for fulfilling this part of the obligations had not yet arrived. However, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts incorrectly relied on the term of obligation fulfillment, whereas for determining the status of claims as competitive, the moment of their occurrence before the bankruptcy proceedings is significant, not the term of execution. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decisions regarding the refusal to recognize claims for 8.5 million UAH and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for proper assessment of all creditor’s claims from the perspective of their occurrence moment.
Case No. 300/913/20 dated 16/01/2025
The court established that when determining the comparability of transactions for transfer pricing, it is necessary to consider the seasonality of demand in the wallpaper market, which significantly affects financial results. Therefore, comparing profitability indicators for a full year is correct, not just for individual months of controlled transactions. Additionally, the tax authority made methodological errors in calculating additional charges, not taking into account the actual inventory markdown.
Case No. 826/26667/15 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Law of Ukraine “On the National Police”, militia employees who wished to continue service in the police had to submit a corresponding report within 3 months from the law’s publication date. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of submitting such a report and did not confirm their desire to serve in the police in the established procedure, their dismissal was legal. The court also noted that the dismissal warning occurred automatically from the moment of law publication.
Case No. 904/6186/23 dated 14/01/2025
