Here is the translation of the provided legal texts:
Case No. 638/4002/18 dated 22/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the guilt of the convicted person is fully proven by a set of evidence – witness testimonies, results of investigative experiments, expert conclusions, particularly the discovery of the convicted person’s DNA on the instrument of crime. The court rejected the convicted person’s arguments about pressure from law enforcement officers, as this was not confirmed during verification. The court also took into account that the convicted person had previously been convicted of intentional murder, which became the basis for qualifying the crime under paragraph 13, part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 183/4349/21 dated 15/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) the existence of a tax debt of the enterprise amounting to over 4 million hryvnias, which arose during the plaintiff’s management, was documentarily confirmed; 2) the manager did not ensure the mandatory inventory for 2019-2020; 3) violation of even one point of the contract is sufficient grounds for its termination, as the contract form of employment provides for increased employee responsibility.
Case No. 487/2668/23 dated 23/01/2025
The court established that the economic block was built by the previous owner on legal grounds on a land plot of 68.15 sq.m, which is part of a plot of 499.45 sq.m allocated to him for use by court decision. The plaintiff mistakenly believed that this plot belonged to him, incorrectly interpreting previous court decisions on land plot distribution. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of his rights by the construction of this structure.
Case No. 441/1100/16 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing against the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court in a criminal case under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of road safety rules causing serious consequences). As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the convicted PERSON_6 disagreed with the decisions of previous instances and appealed them in cassation to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the convicted person’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 910/1686/24 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute – declaring illegal and canceling the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and obliging certain actions. The court did not consider the case on its merits, as it discovered procedural violations in the decisions of lower courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the case requires a new review to fully and comprehensively clarify all circumstances. The court decided that previous court decisions cannot remain in force as they do not meet the requirements of procedural legislation. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaints, canceled the decisions of the first and appellate instances, and sent the case for a new review to the Commercial Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/10970/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following arguments: 1) expenses must be real, necessary, and reasonable; 2) the size of the lawyer’s fee must be proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided; 3) the company’s legal position did not change during the case review, and the lawyer was familiar with the case details, as he represented the client’s interests in the first and appellate instance courts.Case No. 3/24 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing penalties amounting to 40.7 million UAH for violations of settlement terms in foreign economic operations.
Key Court Arguments: 1) The controlling authority issued an order for an on-site inspection but actually conducted a remote inspection, which is a procedural violation. 2) Previous instance courts did not properly examine evidence regarding force majeure circumstances and did not evaluate all important arguments of the taxpayer. 3) Full and comprehensive clarification of case circumstances was not ensured, which violates procedural law norms.
Court Decision: Annul decisions of previous instance courts and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and objective investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 480/8785/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that after amendments to the Regulation on Legal Assistance Order dated June 8, 2024, an order is considered signed by an attorney if it is an attachment to a document signed with an electronic signature. Therefore, an additional handwritten signature on the order is not required if it is attached to an appeal complaint signed electronically. The court also considered the need to avoid excessive formalism under martial law conditions and judicial digitalization.
Case No. 639/6950/18 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for hooliganism committed by a group of persons (Part 4, Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The cassation instance court reviewed the defender’s cassation complaint against previous court decisions. As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide reasoning for its decision but notes that the full text of the resolution will be announced later. It is worth noting that the case has been reviewed in all three instances, which indicates a thorough investigation of all case circumstances.
The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and dismissed the defender’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 552/3301/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court ruling regarding a person accused of crimes related to illegal drug trafficking.
The court does not provide detailed argumentation in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the court found grounds to revoke the appellate court ruling and assign a new case review. The court considered it necessary to apply a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days to the accused.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, revoked the appellate court ruling, and referred the case for a new review.
Case No. 761/17092/19 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the appellate court ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings regarding replacement of a party in enforcement proceedings.
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly refused to open proceedings, as the case materials lack evidence of proper notification of the debtor about the first instance court review. SMS messages are not a proper method of court summons, and there is no other evidence of sending a court summons. Therefore, the one-year limitation for appellate appeal is not applied in this case, as the person was not notified about the case review.
The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court ruling and referred the case to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.Proceedings.
Case No. 638/4002/18 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict of the first and appellate instance courts regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder and robbery. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation complaint, decided to partially modify the previous court decisions, but only in terms of the imposed punishment. The court sentenced the person to 15 years of imprisonment for intentional murder and 12 years for robbery, ultimately determining the punishment as 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property by absorbing the less severe punishment with the more severe one. In other respects, all previous decisions were left unchanged. The Cassation Court rejected the convict’s cassation complaint but independently adjusted the imposed punishment.
Case No. 910/20152/23 dated 23/01/2025
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the company did not properly receive the AMCU’s request for information, which is a prerequisite for bringing to responsibility. The AMCU did not timely provide evidence of sending such a request, violating the procedural terms for submitting evidence. The court also took into account that the AMCU did not substantiate the impossibility of submitting evidence within the established timeframe due to reasons beyond its control.
Case No. 495/1423/18 dated 24/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – legality of transferring a land plot of 0.1 hectares into private ownership for individual summer cottage construction. The court established that the change in the land plot’s use from ‘construction and maintenance of recreational facilities’ to ‘individual summer cottage construction’ occurred within the same category of recreational land, and therefore did not require the development of a land management project. The Zatoka Village Council, as the owner, had the right to determine the plot’s use within this land category. The technical documentation for land plot division was duly approved. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the prosecutor’s claim to declare the decision on land plot transfer illegal.
Case No. 201/11583/23 dated 20/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – legality of convicting a person for stealing goods from ATB supermarkets worth 492.87 UAH and 865.76 UAH during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that according to the new Law No. 3886-IX and the Tax Code of Ukraine, criminal liability for theft in 2023 arose only if the value of the stolen property exceeded 2,684 UAH. Since in both episodes the value of the stolen items was significantly less than this amount, the court concluded that the law under which the person was convicted had lost its force. The court referred to the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court dated 07.10.2024. The Supreme Court canceled the verdicts of lower instance courts and closed the criminal proceedings due to the loss of force of the law establishing criminal liability for these actions.
Case No. 911/783/24 dated 21/01/2025
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the defendant proved the occurrence of force majeure circumstances (rocket attack and fire), properly notified the plaintiff within 5 days, and obtained a corresponding certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The court also took into account that the storage location was agreed upon by the parties, and neither party proposed changing it, so the defendant could not have foreseen or prevented the loss of property.
Case No. 925/1459/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: recovery of debt under a contract for performance of prRegarding the first case (Case No. 925/436/21 dated 15/01/2025):
The court was guided by the following: 1) Individual Entrepreneur Hulak O.V. provided an acceptance certificate for completed design work for the amount of 2,250,000 UAH, signed by both parties; 2) LLC ‘ECOCENTER MBO-T’ did not provide evidence of payment for the completed work; 3) the fictitious nature of the contract was not proven, as there was no intent by both parties to avoid legal consequences, and the work was actually performed.
The court satisfied the claim of Individual Entrepreneur Hulak O.V. for debt recovery and rejected the counterclaim of LLC ‘ECOCENTER MBO-T’ to declare the contract invalid.
The court established that the appellate court violated procedural legislation by going beyond the arguments of the appeal and changing the amount of legal assistance costs without proper justification. Additionally, the appellate court did not consider the application for recovering legal assistance costs incurred in the appellate instance.
Regarding the second case (Case No. 752/6632/18 dated 23/01/2025):
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal for a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (distribution of pornographic items).
As this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from a procedural point of view, the cassation instance court found significant violations that became the basis for canceling the appellate court’s decision. Such violations require a new review of the case in the appellate instance to eliminate them.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Would you like me to continue with the translation of the remaining cases?1) in the lawyer’s fee, it is not necessary to provide a detailed description of works; 3) the appellate court correctly assessed the proportionality of expenses, taking into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and other criteria, and reasonably reduced the reimbursement amount by more than twice.
Case No. 916/4066/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff properly proved the actual provision of legal assistance (provided a legal assistance agreement, work assignment, completed work acts, and cost calculations). Importantly, the defendant did not file a motion to reduce legal assistance expenses and did not raise objections to their amount. The court also took into account that the claimed expenses are proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided.
Case No. 148/1273/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court regarding a person accused of robbery on a particularly large scale (Part 4, Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. However, based on the operative part, the court established significant violations that became the basis for canceling the previous decision. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to keep the accused in custody during the new appellate review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, canceled the appellate court’s verdict, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate court.
Case No. 369/849/18 dated 23/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that legal assistance expenses must meet the criteria of reality, inevitability, reasonableness, and proportionality. The court analyzed the lawyer’s services and found that part of the claimed expenses (such as familiarization with documents, filing similar motions in various ways) do not meet these criteria. At the same time, the court recognized the expenses for preparing a response to the cassation complaint and a motion for an additional decision as justified.
Case No. 369/7253/23 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court correctly refused to prohibit the child’s removal from the country, as such a precautionary measure is not provided by law. However, the appellate court did not take into account that the mother has the right to personal communication with the child, and the father cannot obstruct this. The court did not verify the mother’s arguments that the father makes it impossible for her to communicate with her son in Chernivtsi, where the child currently resides.
Case No. 577/4706/21 dated 16/01/2025
Subject of dispute: appealing the court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for theft and appropriation of an official document with a request to mitigate the punishment. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the convicted person admitted guilt only partially and constantly changed his testimony; 2) there are aggravating circumstances – recidivism and committing a crime against an elderly person; 3) the probation authority determined that the correction of the accused without deprivation of liberty is impossible due to high public danger. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the first instance and appellate court, which sentenced the person to 6 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 149/3531/22 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court verdict regarding the imposition of actual punishment in the form of imprisonment instead of exemption from serving the sentence with probation for robbery during martial law. The courtThe first part of the text appears to be a criminal case summary, which I will translate as follows:
The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person committed a new serious crime before the expiration of the previous criminal record’s rehabilitation period (less than a year after serving the sentence for the previous verdict). Although the court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposed a sentence below the lowest limit of the sanction, it took into account that committing a new crime during an unexpunged criminal record excludes the possibility of conditional release. The court also considered the severity of the crime and the fact that it was committed during martial law. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, which imposed a sentence of 5 years of imprisonment with actual serving.
Would you like me to continue translating the subsequent case summaries as well?Supreme Court Decisions Summary:
1. Case No. 910/3006/24 dated 21/01/2025:
The court ruled that the plaintiff filed a claim under a bank guarantee after the bank’s liquidation procedure had begun. According to the special Law “On the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals”, no additional obligations arise after the start of bank liquidation, except for liquidation procedure expenses. Since the claim was filed after liquidation commenced, it is considered an additional obligation and is not subject to inclusion in the creditors’ claims register.
2. Case No. 463/12355/20 dated 23/01/2025:
The court determined that the landlord (Municipal Property Management) timely notified the tenant about terminating contractual relations after the lease term expired. The tenant’s application for contract extension was submitted after the deadline, and evidence of inability to submit it timely was deemed insufficient. The court also noted that the landlord exercised their legitimate right not to extend the contract by sending appropriate notification within a month after contract expiration.
3. Case No. 760/27983/19 dated 22/01/2025:
The court’s decision was based on: 1) the plaintiff did not prove a rights violation by the defendant at the time of court appeal; 2) the mere existence of debt does not indicate plaintiff’s rights violation; 3) accrual of interest, commissions, and penalties is only a preliminary recording of obligation breach and does not directly affect the plaintiff’s rights.
4. Case No. 405/3234/23 dated 22/01/2025:
The court ruled that due to reorganization, a specific private-public legal succession occurred, where the Social Insurance Fund as a private law entity ceased to exist, and its powers transferred to the Pension Fund of Ukraine as a public law entity. Since the claims are aimed at reinstatement in a public service position, such dispute should be considered under administrative, not civil proceedings.
5. Case No. 290/480/20 dated 23/01/2025:
The subject of dispute was challenging the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code (grievous bodily harm resulting in death). The Supreme Court did not find grounds to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and left the previous instances’ decisions unchanged.
6. Case No. 537/765/22 dated 21/01/2025:
The dispute concerned challenging the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for theft and illegal weapon handling. The court acknowledged that the criminal liability law for theft (Part 3, Article 185 of the Criminal Code) had become invalid and closed proceedings in that part. However, the conviction for illegal weapon handling (Part 1, Article 263 of the Criminal Code) was maintained.Taking into account the previous sentence. The court also excluded the reference to Article 70 of the Criminal Code, as after the decriminalization of theft, there was no need to impose punishment for a set of crimes. Based on the results of the cassation appeal review, the Supreme Court partially amended the court decisions of lower instances, imposing a final punishment of 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment.
Case No. 910/1241/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the enterprise, having a 100% monopoly position in the hot water supply services market in Cherkasy, developed and applied economically unjustified hot water consumption rates at the level of 120 l/day instead of the 100 l/day provided by current regulations. Such actions would have been impossible under competitive conditions and led to the infringement of consumers’ interests through the need to pay according to inflated rates. The enterprise did not prove that it was experiencing significant competition in the market.
Case No. 372/2473/23 dated 21/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is appealing the first instance court’s sentence and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The cassation instance court, having reviewed the defender’s cassation appeal, found no grounds for canceling or changing previous court decisions. It is worth noting that the accused had previously been convicted multiple times, including for a similar crime – an attempt at theft. An important factor is that he committed the new crime shortly after being released from serving the previous sentence. The Supreme Court left the first instance court’s sentence and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, refusing to satisfy the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 160/21861/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority did not provide proper evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline for appellate appeal. The lack of funds for paying court fees is a subjective reason, and the repeated appellate appeal was filed with the same deficiencies, which indicates the complainant’s bad faith. The court also took into account that to restore the deadline, it is necessary to prove the existence of objective and insurmountable circumstances that made timely appeal impossible.
Case No. 910/2693/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: appealing the bank’s actions to block the company’s bank accounts because its ultimate beneficial owner is a citizen of the Russian Federation. The court’s main arguments: 1) The bank rightfully blocked the accounts based on NBU Resolution No. 18, which prohibits operations with accounts of legal entities whose ultimate beneficial owners are RF residents; 2) The beneficial owner’s possession of a UK passport does not refute his residency in the RF, especially considering that he obtained a new RF passport in 2023; 3) The company did not provide proper evidence that its beneficial owner is not an RF resident. Court decision: deny the claim and maintain the blocking of the company’s accounts.
Case No. 487/1536/23 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – reinstatement at work and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence of an employee who claims to have worked as a security inspector at LLC “ZODIAK-SB”. The cassation instance court pointed out that the appellate court incorrectly refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not file a separate demand to establish the fact of labor relations. According to the Supreme Court’s position, in cases of lawsuit proceedings on reinstatement, establishing the fact of labor relations is only a basis for resolving the case and does not require a separate demand. The court also noted that the appellate court did not verify the conclusionSupreme Court’s First Instance Court Decision on Dispute Resolution. The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s decision and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 922/2896/20 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court concluded that claims for declaring the city council’s decision illegal and the purchase and sale agreement invalid are ineffective methods of protection, as their satisfaction would not lead to restoration of the violated right. At the same time, the courts did not investigate the issue of good faith acquisition of property by the final acquirers, which is important for resolving claims for property recovery.
Case No. 906/63/24 dated 15/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that an individual and an individual entrepreneur are a single entity in terms of rights and obligations, therefore the claim was legitimately filed against an individual, not an individual entrepreneur. The court also took into account that the statute of limitations had not expired due to its extension during the COVID-19 quarantine. Additionally, the court noted that the disputed lease agreement was concluded in violation of legal requirements, as the person had already exercised their right to obtain a land plot for a farming enterprise.
Case No. 910/14552/22 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt for delivered goods and penalty sanctions from NAEK Energoatom JSC totaling 1.47 million UAH. The court was guided by the following: 1) the supply contract was concluded and executed before the full-scale war; 2) the plaintiff is not subject to sanctions and moratorium on obligation fulfillment, as it is a Ukrainian company with 100% Ukrainian beneficiary; 3) the respondent’s internal decisions to suspend payments cannot be grounds for non-fulfillment of contractual obligations. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision on partial claim satisfaction and recovery of the main debt of 1.14 million UAH, 3% per annum, and inflation losses, refusing to recover the penalty.
Case No. 910/17134/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protecting their rights, as declaring actions illegal would not lead to actual restoration of the violated right. The court also took into account that the exclusion from the register occurred due to the plaintiff’s violation of gas supply settlement conditions. Moreover, such a claim was aimed only at creating prejudicial circumstances for another case, which contradicts the objectives of legal proceedings.
Case No. 910/15308/23 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of professional legal assistance costs of 159,709.14 UAH incurred by the plaintiff during the cassation instance case review. When resolving the issue of legal assistance costs reimbursement, the court was guided by the following criteria: case complexity and scope of services provided, time spent by the lawyer, proportionality of costs to the dispute subject, case significance for the parties. The court considered that the plaintiff’s legal position did not change during the case review, and representation was carried out by the same lawyer, therefore no additional comprehensive case study was required at the cassation stage.
Court decision: partially satisfied the application and recovered from the respondent in favor of the plaintiff legal assistance costs of 15,000 UAH instead of the claimed 159,709.14 UAH.
Case No. 902/1046/23 dated 14/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the main debt was voluntarily repaid by the respondent during the case review.Rights, therefore, the proceedings in this part were closed. Regarding the penalty sanctions, the court took into account the defendant’s status as an electricity supplier for consumers in Vinnytsia Oblast, the fact of voluntary repayment of the principal debt, and the protection of the plaintiff’s interests through the accrual of 3% per annum and inflation losses. On this basis, the court reduced the penalty amount by 25%.
Case No. 461/888/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute – legality of conviction for theft of property worth 709.16 UAH during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that on August 9, 2024, Law No. 3886-IX came into force, which changed the boundaries of administrative and criminal liability for theft. The United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court in its resolution of October 7, 2024, determined that this law has retroactive effect and decriminalizes petty theft. Since the value of the stolen property (709.16 UAH) was significantly lower than the criminal liability threshold (3,028 UAH), the act ceased to be a crime. The Supreme Court canceled the judgment of the first instance and appellate courts, closed the criminal proceedings, and released the person from custody due to decriminalization of the act.
Case No. 333/6680/23 dated 15/01/2025
The cassation instance court canceled the appellate court’s decision to return children to the mother, as the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of evidence in the case, including housing condition inspection reports indicating the lack of proper living conditions for the children, the guardianship authority’s conclusion on the inexpediency of returning the children, and did not take into account the children’s own opinion, who do not wish to return to their mother. The court noted that the mother’s mere desire to return the children without proving the elimination of the reasons for their removal cannot be grounds for satisfying the claim.
Case No. 205/3998/22 dated 15/01/2025
The first instance court satisfied the city council’s application, as it established the absence of heirs after the owner’s death, both by will and by law. The appellate court canceled this decision and left the application without consideration, believing that there is a dispute over the right, as a person claiming this property lives in the house. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, noting that mere residence in the house does not indicate the existence of a dispute over inheritance rights.
Case No. 344/9591/20 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the bank did not provide evidence that the client, by their actions or inaction, contributed to the loss, illegal use of the PIN code, or other information for making payments. Since the funds were withdrawn without the client’s physical presence and without electronic identification of the payment method, and the client immediately informed the bank about the unauthorized withdrawal and contacted the police – the bank is obligated to return the funds. The fact that the criminal proceedings have not yet been completed does not deprive the client of the right to demand the return of funds from the bank.
Case No. 367/3693/20 dated 22/01/2025
When making the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the father is able to pay alimony in the established amount; 2) the presence of other children under maintenance is not a reason to reduce the amount of alimony; 3) the mother of another child of the alimony payer does not have the right to appeal the decision on collecting alimony in favor of another child, as her rights are not directly violated by this decision.
Case No. 761/12785/22 dated 23/01/2025
The court, when making the decision, was guided by the fact that the applicant…
