Case No. 201/1971/23 dated 15/01/2025
The court of first instance satisfied the complaint of KEU and canceled the state executor’s resolutions, as KEU is a budgetary institution and the decision to recover funds from it must be executed by treasury bodies. The appellate court agreed with this decision. However, during the case review, a significant procedural violation was committed – the claimant was not properly notified about the court session, which violated his right to a fair trial.
Case No. 473/1699/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that the plaintiff twice failed to appear at court hearings, did not provide proper evidence of valid reasons for his absence, although he claimed a desire to personally participate in the case review. At the same time, the court verified and refuted the plaintiff’s explanations regarding his involvement in other court proceedings. Considering that the case is urgent and must be reviewed within 10 days, and that the plaintiff did not demonstrate proper procedural discipline, the court deemed it legitimate to leave the claim without consideration.
Case No. 607/9231/22 dated 16/01/2025
The court established that the convicted PERSON_8 demanded 10,000 hryvnias from the victim PERSON_10, using threats and physical violence. The defense’s version about the existence of debt obligations between the victim and the convicted was refuted, as it was not confirmed by evidence. The court recognized as sufficient and admissible the evidence of guilt, including the victim’s testimony, witnesses’ statements, results of investigative actions and covert investigative (search) actions.
Case No. 460/40/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that the tax authority unreasonably did not recognize the reality of the taxpayer’s business transactions with its contractors, as all operations are confirmed by appropriate primary documents. An error in accounting regarding the reflection of returnable packaging did not affect tax obligations. Additionally, there is no proof of cash receipts by the taxpayer’s officials, as all settlements were made through the bank’s registration replenishment system.
Case No. 0840/2884/18 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the enterprise independently declared land tax obligations but did not pay them on time. The fact of selling buildings on the land plot to another company does not exempt the enterprise from paying land tax, as it remained the official land user according to the state land cadastre. To change the taxpayer, re-registration of land rights is necessary.
Case No. 320/17509/24 dated 21/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging a tax notification-decision on accruing penalties amounting to 2.9 million hryvnias. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not appear at court hearings three times without valid reasons, did not submit an application for considering the case in his absence, and his non-appearance hindered the case review. Meanwhile, the respondent did not insist on reviewing the case on its merits. The court emphasized that the plaintiff, as the process initiator, must actively use his procedural rights and ensure representation of his interests, rather than abuse them. The Supreme Court left unchanged the previous instances’ decisions to leave the claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s non-appearance.Case No. 460/10098/24 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – Pension Fund’s refusal to calculate and pay an increased pension as a third-group disabled person whose illness is related to the Chornobyl disaster. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for applying to court, which is calculated from the moment when a person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights. Since the pension is a monthly payment, its amount was known to the plaintiff at the time of each payment, so they had the opportunity to learn about the violation of their right in a timely manner. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s passive behavior, who applied for protection of rights only in 2024 regarding payments from 2021, cannot be a basis for reinstating the missed term.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 127/14959/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that as a result of reorganization, a specific legal succession occurred, where the powers of the Social Insurance Fund were transferred to the Pension Fund of Ukraine as a public law body. Since the dispute concerns reinstatement in civil service in the Pension Fund bodies, it should be considered under the rules of administrative, not civil proceedings. The court also took into account that public legal succession involves the transfer of management functions from one state body to another.
Case No. 460/8956/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for applying to court and did not provide valid reasons for missing it. The court noted that the pension is a monthly payment, so its amount is known to the person receiving it, and the plaintiff could have learned about the violation of their rights much earlier. The plaintiff’s passive behavior, who applied to court only in 2024 regarding payments from 2021, cannot be an excuse for missing the term.
Case No. 240/88/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – Pension Fund’s refusal to calculate and pay a pension of 8 minimum old-age pensions to a person with disability due to the Chornobyl disaster. The court was guided by the fact that although the legislator established new, lower pension rates for Chornobyl victims in 2021, this violates their right to adequate social protection. The Supreme Court referred to numerous previous decisions where it had already determined that in such cases, the old law provisions providing for the payment of 8 minimum pensions should be applied. The court emphasized that the state cannot worsen the social protection of those affected by the Chornobyl disaster. The Supreme Court satisfied the claim and obliged the Pension Fund to pay the plaintiff a pension of 8 minimum old-age pensions.
Case No. 761/5870/24 dated 20/01/2025
The court noted that advocacy is carried out on the basis of a legal assistance agreement, and although the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine does not specify the agreement as a document to confirm powers – this does not exclude the lawyer’s right to confirm their powers precisely by the agreement. The court also emphasized that in the absence of information about the invalidity of the lawyer’s certificate or termination of their activity, the court has no grounds to doubt the representative’s status as a lawyer.
Case No. 309/3214/23 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing an acquittal for a person accused of domestic violence. The court in making the decision was guided by the fact that: 1)1) The prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of a conflict between the accused and the victim; 2) the presence of psychological suffering and deterioration of the victim’s quality of life, which are mandatory elements of the crime, were not proven; 3) systematic (third-time) commission of domestic violence, which is necessary for qualification under Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, was not confirmed. The Supreme Court left the acquittal unchanged and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 309/3214/23 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding domestic violence (Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Unfortunately, since this is only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s resolution, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments used by the court in making its decision. The document lacks a motivational part with legal substantiation of the court’s position. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the Zakarpattia Appellate Court unchanged and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 260/6691/23 dated 22/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the key circumstances of the case: they did not verify whether the tax authority took all legally prescribed measures to repay the debt, did not analyze the debt structure and correctness of its calculation, and did not establish the availability of funds in the debtor’s accounts. The legality of accruing penalties of over 1 million hryvnias was also not examined, especially during the period of quarantine restrictions when there was a ban on penalty accrual.
Case No. 160/4965/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions made based on the results of a scheduled documentary audit of LLC “MGRUPTEHNOLOGIYA”. The court was guided by the fact that at the time of the audit, a moratorium on conducting scheduled documentary audits was in effect, established by paragraph 52-2 of the Tax Code of Ukraine during the quarantine period. Although the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine allowed such audits by Resolution No. 89, this resolution contradicted the Tax Code of Ukraine, which has higher legal force. Since the audit was conducted in violation of the moratorium, its results and the tax notifications-decisions based on them are illegal. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instance courts on declaring the tax notifications-decisions unlawful and canceling them unchanged.
Case No. 821/943/17 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the taxpayer lawfully included the VAT amount from the tax invoice from NAK “Naftogaz of Ukraine” in the tax credit, which was not registered in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices, as they submitted Appendix 8 (statement of refusal by the supplier to provide a tax invoice) along with the declaration. At the same time, the fact of actual gas supply was not disputed by the tax authority, and the taxpayer had the right to apply the cash method as a heat supply enterprise.
Case No. 282/1670/21 dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff filed an appellate complaint two years after the decision was made, although they were properly notified about the case consideration. References to martial law cannot be grounds for recognizing circumstances of force majeure, as the Unified State Register of Court Decisions resumed operation in June 2022, and the complaint was filed only in April 2024. The court also took into account the practiceECHR Case Law Regarding Compliance with the Principle of Legal Certainty
Case No. 199/6714/20 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff could not prove the fact of not signing the contracts. Although a handwriting examination was appointed, it could not be conducted due to the absence of the plaintiff’s signature samples, as he was outside Ukraine. The court noted that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
Case No. 278/2064/17 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging an acquittal regarding a person accused of lewd acts against a minor. The cassation court established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of evidence in the case, specifically: the defendant’s correspondence with the victim on a social network of a sexual nature; expert conclusion about the victim’s inability to fully comprehend the nature of actions towards her due to age; witness testimonies about the victim’s agitated state after the incident. The appellate court also unreasonably deemed the victim’s testimony false based on telephone call data. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s decision and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court to comprehensively investigate all case circumstances.
Case No. 420/7259/23 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute – declaring military units’ inaction as unlawful and compelling certain actions. Unfortunately, the provided operative part of the decision does not allow establishing specific court arguments due to the absence of the reasoning part. However, it is evident that the Supreme Court decided that the appellate court made errors in case consideration requiring a new case review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s decision, and referred the case for a new review to the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal.
Case No. 462/4550/22 dated 17/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the appropriate method of protecting an heir’s rights in this situation is a vindication claim (recovering property from illegal possession), not invalidating the auction. Since the disputed apartment was initially alienated from the plaintiff’s ownership to one person and then another, recovering the property is the most effective way to protect the violated right. For such recovery, challenging subsequent transactions regarding the disputed property is not necessary.
Case No. 240/1068/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that Law No. 1584-IX, which established fixed pension sizes for Chornobyl victims, contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine and violates the right to adequate social protection. The Supreme Court decided that the previous law version should be applied, which provided a pension of 6 minimum age pensions for III group disabled persons. The court referenced established Supreme Court practice in similar cases.
Case No. 761/9063/21 dated 15/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the defendant PERSON_1 purchased his own apartment in September 2020 and indicated it as his actual residence, owns another apartment, and after the start of legal proceedings, gifted the purchased apartment to his sister, which indicates bad faith behavior. Moreover, his ex-wife and child reside in another city.The provided receipts for partial payment of utility services do not prove the fact of permanent residence in the disputed premises.
[Case No. 202/1843/15-k dated 22/01/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Acceptance of the convict’s cassation complaint against the first instance court verdict and the appellate court ruling.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court took into account that the term for cassation appeal was renewed by the district court ruling. The cassation complaint meets the requirements of Article 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960. There are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint for consideration together with another cassation complaint, for which the criminal case materials have already been requested.
Court Decision: The convict’s cassation complaint has been accepted for consideration in the cassation procedure.
[Case No. 390/25/22 dated 20/01/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Termination of the emphyteusis agreement (right to use a land plot for agricultural purposes) due to non-payment by the user.
The court, when considering the case, was guided by the fact that emphyteusis is one of the most robust property rights after ownership, which is independent and separate from the agreement establishing it. The grounds for terminating emphyteusis are determined exclusively by law and are exhaustive. General grounds for contract termination, including for substantial breach, cannot be applied to terminate emphyteusis. The proper way to protect the owner’s rights in case of non-payment is to recover the debt, not to terminate the agreement.
The court rejected the claim to terminate the emphyteusis agreement, as the plaintiffs had chosen an inappropriate method of protecting their violated right.
[Case No. 640/4985/20 dated 22/01/2025]
Subject of Dispute – Refusal of the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine to approve project documentation and grant permission for earthworks for the construction of a hotel and office complex in the UNESCO buffer zone in the center of Kyiv.
The appellate court, considering the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine’s appeal, concluded that the refusal was lawful, as the disputed project documentation had not passed mandatory approval by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and received a negative assessment from it. The court also noted that the principle of tacit consent cannot be applied in this case, as the Ministry of Culture provided a clear response of refusal. Moreover, obliging the Ministry to approve the project would be an unlawful interference with its discretionary powers.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim of PJSC “L-Capital”.
[Case No. 757/220/23-c dated 20/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that the insurance contract contained a direct exclusion for non-payment of compensation for damages arising from combat or military actions. Since the theft occurred during active combat operations in Hostomel (March 2022), and considering that the plaintiff did not timely notify the insurance company about the insured event (after 3 months instead of the 6 hours stipulated in the contract), the court found the insurance company’s refusal to pay to be lawful.
[Case No. 760/11558/23 dated 16/01/2025]
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the verdict regarding conviction for theft of a scooter and fire hoses during martial law.
The court was guided by the fact that after amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses on 09.08.2024, theft of property worth up to 2 non-taxableTwo episodes of theft (a scooter worth 1,327 hryvnias and two fire hoses worth 1,200 hryvnias) became an administrative offense due to the increase in the minimum income threshold for citizens. Therefore, these two episodes were decriminalized. Regarding the third episode – the theft of four fire hoses worth 2,855 hryvnias, the court took into account the increased public danger due to the crime committed during martial law and frequent missile attacks, as well as the defendant’s previous convictions. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – closed the criminal proceedings for two theft episodes due to decriminalization, but left unchanged the punishment of 7 years of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court for the third episode.
Case No. 531/1420/21 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court pointed out that the appellate court made a mistake by focusing only on a formal assessment of agreements between parents and a settlement agreement, but did not investigate the most important issue – what are the best interests of the child that need protection. Moreover, the court did not hear the opinion of the 10-year-old child, although this was necessary given the child’s age. The Supreme Court emphasized that the child’s interests should prevail over the parents’ interests, and the case requires a complete and comprehensive investigation of all circumstances.
Case No. 335/3926/20 dated 22/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging the verdict of the first and appellate courts regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic safety rules that caused serious consequences (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Unfortunately, since only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s resolution are provided, it is impossible to analyze the arguments that guided the court in making the decision. A full analysis would require the complete text of the court decision with its reasoning part. The Supreme Court left the verdicts of the first and appellate courts unchanged and rejected the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 569/6604/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the Inspection missed the 10-day period for appellate appeal without valid reasons. Although the Inspection referred to martial law and lack of electricity due to enemy attacks, it did not provide any evidence that these circumstances actually prevented filing the complaint on time. Moreover, electricity supply problems lasted only one day, which does not justify significant delay. The court also emphasized that state bodies must act promptly and comply with procedural terms on par with other process participants.
Case No. 563/404/22 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 a criminal case regarding illegal drug trafficking. The court considered cassation appeals from defenders of two convicted persons who were found guilty of criminal offenses related to illegal production, storage, and sale of narcotic drugs (Articles 307, 309, 311, 317 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since the provided operative part lacks the reasoning part of the decision, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and denied satisfaction of the defenders’ cassation appeals.
Case No. 540/5794/21 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff was rightfully credited with a period of military service (2 years, 3 months, 9 days) towards the work experience for a judge’s position, as well as half of the study period at a law school (1 year, 9 months).within 15 days), as well as 2 years of legal work experience, which were a necessary condition for the first appointment as a judge. At the same time, the court refused to count 5 years of work experience in the legal specialty, since the required 2 years of experience were already taken into account through work as a court consultant and intern.
Case No. 817/757/18 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the company correctly formed the cost of production using dairy screenings as semi-finished products, not production waste; 2) selling butter at prices below cost does not violate tax legislation, as this is a normal commercial risk; 3) cash settlements were made in compliance with all requirements through properly executed power of attorney agreements.
Case No. 240/33526/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that although amendments were made to the law in 2021 establishing fixed pension amounts for Chornobyl victims, these changes worsen social protection for those affected by the Chornobyl disaster. Therefore, the previous version of the law should be applied, which provided for pension payment in the amount of 8 minimum pensions for age for disabled persons of group II. The court also referred to similar decisions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
Case No. 160/16489/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for appealing the executive committee decisions from 2019, as they had a real opportunity to learn about them earlier, since the decisions were published on the city council’s official website. The court did not recognize the reasons for missing the term as valid, as the plaintiff did not prove the existence of objective obstacles that would make timely court appeal impossible. The plaintiff’s passive behavior regarding clarifying the grounds for property demolition cannot justify missing the appeal term.
Case No. 380/17603/23 dated 22/01/2025
The cassation instance court indicated that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish the plaintiff’s legal status and legal regulation of their pension provision, as there is a difference between pension provision for persons dismissed from military prosecutor’s office and military personnel seconded to other state authorities. Previous instance courts did not establish whether the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office is authorized to issue a certificate of monetary compensation amount for pension recalculation.
Case No. 460/9020/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that a pension is a monthly periodic payment, so its amount is known to the person receiving it. The plaintiff could have learned about the violation of their rights monthly when receiving the pension but appealed to the court only after 3 years, significantly missing the 6-month term for court appeal. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide valid reasons for missing the term.
Case No. 127/27730/23 dated 20/01/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal of the appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings regarding robbery committed under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Since 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 agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions and found no grounds for its cancellation based on the prosecutor’s complaint. The Supreme Court left the Vinnytsia Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint – without satisfaction.Case No. 344/21128/21 dated 08/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly examine the evidence and did not establish important factual circumstances of the case, specifically: whether the defendant complied with housing legislation requirements regarding the procedure for granting the right to live in a dormitory, from what time he actually resided in the disputed room, whether he was settled there in accordance with the law. The courts also did not provide proper assessment of the fact that the defendant is registered at a different address.
Case No. 686/18206/21 dated 16/01/2025
The court of first instance recognized the video recording of the traffic accident and all derivative evidence as inadmissible due to doubts about its reliability, as the file creation date and duration did not correspond to the extraction protocol. The Supreme Court considers such conclusions premature, since the parties did not dispute the fact of the accident in the video, and the expertise did not reveal signs of editing. The court of first instance also did not provide proper assessment of other evidence in the case.
Case No. 200/2711/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the statute of limitations for such a claim is 6 months and begins from the first day of the month following the pension debt payment. Since the debt was paid in July 2023, and the plaintiff applied to the court only in May 2024, he missed the application period without valid reasons. Applying to the court for control over the execution of the previous decision does not change the moment when the plaintiff became aware of the violation of his rights.
Case No. 280/1079/21 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that, according to Article 61 of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service” and Article 1219 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, unpaid pension amounts are not part of the inheritance and have a special legal payment regime. To receive such funds, family members must apply to the Pension Fund authorities within 6 months after the pensioner’s death, not through the mechanism of procedural succession in court.
Case No. 420/24693/21 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that a part of the real estate of the recreation base belonging to the plaintiff is actually located on the disputed land plot. This is confirmed by the forensic expert opinion and conclusions of competent authorities in the field of architecture and land relations. The city council did not provide legal grounds for refusing to approve the land management project, as provided for in Article 123 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 540/5794/21 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff was legally credited with the following work experience for a judge’s position: the period of military service, half of the university study time, and 2 years of legal work experience, which were a necessary condition for the first appointment to a judge’s position. At the same time, the court refused to credit 5 years of work experience in the legal specialty, since this period was not a mandatory condition for appointment to an appellate court judge’s position, and the required 2 years of experience were already taken into account.
Case No. 161/3073/23 dated 16/01/2025
The appellate instance court mitigated the punishment for the convict, replacing imprisonment with a fine by applyingArticle 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment than provided by law). The Supreme Court indicated that for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, there must be special circumstances that significantly reduce the social danger of the crime, which was not the case in this matter. The circumstances cited by the appellate court (the defendant’s role, number of episodes, absence of victims) do not affect the social danger of the committed acts.
Case No. 570/3901/21 dated 16/01/2025
The court of cassation instance agreed with the arguments of the prosecutor and victims that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment). The cassation court noted that the convict’s behavior after committing the crime (committing a new crime against a person’s health), the formal nature of his apologies and attempts to compensate for damages do not provide grounds for mitigating the punishment. The court also took into account that the convict deliberately waited until evening to take revenge on the victim for a morning conflict.
Case No. 335/5820/23 dated 16/01/2025
The court refused to satisfy the claim, guided by the fact that: 1) at the time of the auction, the court decision was valid; 2) the cancellation of the court decision occurred not due to unfair actions of the parties, but due to a procedural error; 3) the new decision of the appellate court actually confirmed the legitimacy of the recovery of the apartment; 4) the apartment buyer is a bona fide acquirer who purchased the property in the manner prescribed by law.
Case No. 630/563/23 dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the state executor acted lawfully, as the decision was subject to immediate execution only in terms of collecting alimony for one month. At the same time, since the state executor’s resolutions were canceled administratively, the underpaid amounts may be included in the calculation of debt during further execution of the court decision that has entered into legal force. The court also took into account that a new writ of execution was issued for the court decision that has entered into legal force, and a new enforcement proceeding was opened.
Case No. 240/1127/24 dated 22/01/2025
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 appropriate level of social protection for those affected by the Chornobyl disaster. Therefore, the disputed legal relations should be governed by the law in the previous version, which provided for the payment of a pension in the amount of 8 minimum pensions for age for disabled persons of group II.
Case No. 440/17390/23 dated 22/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the military unit missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court decision, which ended on February 26, 2024. Submitting an appellate complaint on March 25, 2024, was 28 days late. The court recognized that the introduction of martial law and internal organizational problems of the military unit are not valid reasons for renewing the missed deadline.
Case No. 816/1215/18 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the entrepreneur provided all necessary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions and the use of purchased goods in economic activities; 2) expenses for renting premises and purchasing equipment wereand economically justified and confirmed by primary documents; 3) violations of tax legislation by counterparties cannot be grounds for depriving taxpayers of the right to a tax credit if their awareness of such violations is not proven.
Case No. 563/404/22 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of two persons for illegal manufacture and sale of psychotropic substances (amphetamine). The cassation instance court found that the guilt of the convicted persons is proven by a set of evidence – witness testimonies, results of covert investigative actions (telephone conversation interception, visual surveillance), search protocols, and expert conclusions. The court rejected the defense arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during a night search and the need to document drug sales exclusively through a controlled purchase.
The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court, according to which the defendants were sentenced to 9.5 and 7 years of imprisonment, respectively, with confiscation of property.
Case No. 2240/2536/18 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing a tax notification-decision on accruing penalties for violating settlement terms in foreign currency during an import operation. The court was guided by the fact that the completion of the import operation without importing goods into the territory of Ukraine occurred 223 days after the advance payment (instead of the allowed 180 days). Although the goods were delivered directly to the end buyer in Uzbekistan and payment was received to the plaintiff’s account, since this occurred beyond the 180-day period, the accrual of penalties is lawful. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of submitting documents about the use of goods outside Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim and recognized the accrual of penalties for settlement term violations as lawful.
Case No. 369/12051/19 dated 17/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s ruling on closing appellate proceedings on a complaint by a guarantor who was not a party to the case on debt collection under credit agreements. The court was guided by the fact that persons who did not participate in the case have the right to appeal only those court decisions that directly establish, modify, or terminate their rights and obligations. Since the guarantor transferred the right of claim to another person, he was excluded from legal relations, therefore the first instance court decision does not affect his rights and interests. The court’s statement of the unproven performance of obligations by the guarantor is only a basis for claim rejection and does not violate his rights.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 758/5470/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that as a result of reorganization, a specific legal succession occurred – the Fund as a private law legal entity was terminated, and its powers were transferred to the Pension Fund of Ukraine as a public law body. Since the dispute concerns reinstatement in civil service in the Pension Fund bodies, it should be considered under administrative, not civil proceedings.
Case No. 173/731/19 dated 17/01/2025
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court prematurely…Denied opening the proceedings, without taking into account that the respondent filed a motion to restore the appeal deadline within the court-established period for rectifying deficiencies (until September 30, 2024). The Supreme Court emphasized that a person’s exercise of the right to file such a motion cannot be evaluated as non-compliance with the ruling on leaving the complaint without movement, and refusal to open proceedings without examining the motion violates the right to a fair trial.
Case No. 500/4406/24 dated 22/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of actions by the Enforcement Department of the State Execution Service of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine regarding the non-completion of enforcement proceedings for collecting enforcement fees. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the mere fact of martial law cannot be a basis for restoring the appeal deadline without proving specific obstacles; 2) the respondent did not provide evidence that power outages and air raid alerts actually prevented timely filing of an appeal; 3) significant workload on employees is not a valid reason for missing a procedural deadline for a state authority. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 678/805/22 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the accused PERSON_7, while in the victim’s car, intentionally stole property from the dashboard; 2) after the theft, immediately changed the SIM card in the phone, which indicates no intention to return the property; 3) all evidence in the case (witness testimonies, investigative action protocols) confirm the accused’s guilt in theft, not in appropriating a found item, as claimed by the defense.
Case No. 160/1980/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that ARMA is not a party to criminal proceedings but performs administrative functions as an asset holder. The dispute regarding non-return of funds after lifting the seizure is a public law matter, as it arose in connection with ARMA’s exercise of its authoritative powers. The criminal proceedings were closed, and the issue of material evidence was resolved by a competent court.
Case No. 296/278/12-к dated 22/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling that upheld the first instance court’s verdict. The court established that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal meets all formal requirements of procedural legislation regarding its content and submission procedure. To fully and comprehensively examine the complaint, it is necessary to investigate the criminal case materials. The court decided to request the criminal case from the first instance court for verification in cassation order.
Case No. 280/7589/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that pension assignment for years of service for persons who applied after 19.02.2022 is carried out exclusively considering calendar years of service, not preferential calculation. Since the plaintiff applied on 01.08.2023 and had a calendar service less than the required 23 years (only 20 years 7 months), he is not entitled to such a pension, despite having a longer service under preferential calculation.
Case No. 761/29228/21 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the convict’s guilt was…
