Case No. 362/8003/23 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar claim for penalty recovery for the same period, and by a court decision, she was awarded 22,757 UAH. Although the total amount of penalty for this period was higher (224,347.94 UAH), the plaintiff in the first case claimed only a part of the amount, and this decision became legally binding. Therefore, a repeated claim for recovering the remaining penalty for the same period is impossible, as the dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter and grounds, has already been resolved by the court.
Case No. 751/3052/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that due to the defendant receiving funds under void contracts, the obligation to return these funds arose from the moment of receiving them. Since the funds were not returned in a timely manner, grounds arose for accruing inflation losses and 3% per annum in accordance with Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that paragraph 18 of the Final Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine on exemption from liability during martial law does not apply to such legal relations, as it only concerns credit and loan agreements.
Case No. 912/3031/19 dated 24/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prohibition of using the trademark “Ukrzoloto” and dismantling the corresponding sign from the defendant’s store. The court considered the issue of procedural succession, as the original plaintiff (LLC “Markholder”) transferred the rights to the trademark to the new owner (JSC “Cepheus”). The court recognized that the transfer of trademark rights is a basis for procedural succession, and the original plaintiff can be involved as a third party, as the decision may affect their rights. The court also established that all participants were properly notified of court sessions. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances on replacing the plaintiff with their legal successor and involving the original plaintiff as a third party.
Case No. 170/183/24 dated 23/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of valid reasons for missing the inheritance acceptance deadline. Lack of awareness about the existence of inherited property, advanced age, and martial law circumstances were not recognized by the court as objective, insurmountable, and significant obstacles to timely filing an inheritance acceptance application. The court also took into account that the plaintiff knew about the testator’s death but did not take active steps to accept the inheritance within the legally established timeframe.
Case No. 332/2056/21 dated 21/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by a set of evidence: testimony of the victim and witnesses, medical documents confirming the presence of bodily injuries, a forensic psychiatric examination conclusion about the victim’s inability to resist due to her age and condition. The court also established that pre-trial investigation terms were observed, and a technical error in the prosecutor’s resolution regarding the crime qualification is not a basis for overturning the verdict.
Case No. 759/2917/23 dated 20/01/2025
The court established that the refusal to execute the order was unjustified,Regarding: 1) the military unit where the accused served was not part of airborne assault troops, therefore medical contraindications for service in airborne assault troops were irrelevant; 2) the commander who issued the order was the legal superior of the accused; 3) the order itself was legal and clear. The court also took into account that the crime belongs to the category of serious offenses and was committed during martial law.
Case No. 910/8436/23 dated 20/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the actions of a state executor regarding collection of the debtor’s pension during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that according to the law, during martial law, it is prohibited to collect pension of Ukrainian citizens (except for alimony and health damage compensation). However, the courts did not properly investigate the evidence and did not establish whether the funds collected were indeed pension payments, since the debtor’s account was universal and could be used for various incoming funds. It was also not established whether the bank informed the state executor about the purpose of funds on the account. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to establish the origin of the funds collected.
Case No. 991/7774/24 dated 20/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recognition of an unjustified asset and recovery to state revenue of a 97.7 sq.m apartment in Poltava worth 1.92 million hryvnias, belonging to a serviceman’s mother. Main court arguments: 1) A connection between the apartment and the serviceman was established, as he actually lives there with his family, pays utility services, and indicates it as his place of residence in the declaration; 2) The apartment’s purchase by the serviceman’s mother through his wife by power of attorney coincided with the serviceman’s transfer to service in Poltava; 3) Neither the serviceman’s mother nor he proved the existence of legal income sufficient to purchase such an asset, and the difference between the apartment’s value and confirmed income is 1.89 million hryvnias, which exceeds the legally established limit. Court decision: The claim was fully satisfied – the apartment was recognized as an unjustified asset and recovered to state revenue.
Case No. 303/7389/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation by law enforcement agencies, as operational purchases were conducted legally, based on available information about the accused’s criminal activity. Evidence obtained during covert investigative actions and search is admissible and confirms the person’s guilt. Testimony of an undercover witness is consistent with other case materials.
Case No. 724/188/16-ц dated 22/01/2025
When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that after opening enforcement proceedings, replacement of the enforcement proceeding party should occur, not replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution. First and appellate instance courts incorrectly satisfied the application for replacing the claimant in the writ of execution, although enforcement proceedings were already opened. The Supreme Court pointed out that these concepts are not identical – replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution is possible only before opening enforcement proceedings.The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, reasoning that the premises are under a bank mortgage, and the bank was not involved in the case as a defendant. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that this was incorrect – the mortgage bank cannot be a defendant in such a case and could only be involved as a third party. Moreover, the non-involvement of a third party is not grounds for claim rejection, unlike the non-involvement of a proper defendant.
Case No. 914/72/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court noted that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the nature of the tenants’ violations of their obligations – whether there was a complete non-payment of rent two or more times (which is grounds for contract termination under Article 141 of the Land Code), or partial non-payment (which requires proving the materiality of the breach under Article 651 of the Civil Code). The court also emphasized that the fact of debt repayment after filing the claim does not affect the landlord’s right to demand contract termination.
Case No. 922/2167/23 (922/92/24) dated 15/01/2025
The court rejected the claim, based on the following: 1) the surety agreement was concluded 3.5 years before the bankruptcy proceedings were opened, i.e., outside the ‘suspicious period’ of 3 years; 2) at the time of signing the surety agreement in February 2020, the guarantor’s financial condition was satisfactory – assets exceeded liabilities; 3) the disputed contract was signed in place of previous similar surety agreements.
Case No. 904/6691/20 dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine, after recognizing the debtor as bankrupt, they do not incur any additional obligations, including tax payments. Since the tax payment deadlines occurred after the company was declared bankrupt (after 06.07.2021), such tax obligations cannot be included in creditor claims. The debtor’s submission of tax declarations after the liquidation procedure was introduced does not create an obligation to pay taxes.
Case No. 215/7881/23 dated 20/01/2025
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person sincerely repented, fully compensated the victim, who forgave him and did not insist on actual punishment. The court also took into account that the convicted person is serving military service, has positive characteristics, and the military unit’s command is ready to monitor his behavior. An important factor was also that the convicted person can effectively fulfill his civic duty to defend Ukraine.
Case No. 925/1398/22(925/676/24) dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the liquidator of the bankrupt has the right to obtain information about the debtor’s officials to perform their powers in the bankruptcy case. Such information concerns the debtor itself and cannot be considered confidential in relation to them. The tax authority’s refusal to provide the requested information is unlawful, as it violates the liquidator’s rights to access documents necessary for conducting the bankruptcy procedure.Case No. 910/11028/20 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 742.5 million UAH in damages by the Deposit Guarantee Fund from former managers of ‘Mykhailivskyi’ Bank for loss-making operations that led to the bank’s insolvency.
Key Court Arguments: 1) The Deposit Guarantee Fund has the right to file such lawsuits according to the law in effect at the time of filing; 2) Previous courts incorrectly recognized the Fund as an improper plaintiff and did not properly investigate evidence of the defendants’ unlawful behavior; 3) The fact that the NBU did not indicate disputed transactions as grounds for declaring the bank insolvent does not prove their legality.
Court Decision: The case has been referred for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of all circumstances and evidence.
(Note: The translation continues the same professional approach for the subsequent cases, maintaining legal terminology and precise meaning.)Decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on recognizing the actions of KP “Kyivteploenergo” as a violation of economic competition legislation and imposing a fine. Key arguments of the court: 1) KP “Kyivteploenergo” held a monopoly position in the centralized heating services market in Kyiv with a 100% market share; 2) the enterprise illegally imposed on consumers the obligation to obtain paid technical conditions and decisions for heat meter installation, although legislation did not require this; 3) such actions led to infringement of consumer interests through the need to pay additional funds. Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, which rejected the claim of KP “Kyivteploenergo” to cancel the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision.
Case No. 760/7012/17-k dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation review of the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling in a criminal case concerning two persons. The court does not provide detailed reasoning in the operative part of the resolution, noting only that the full text of the decision will be announced later due to the time required for its preparation. It should be noted that according to procedural legislation, the court has the right to limit itself to announcing only the operative part of the resolution if the preparation of the full text requires additional time. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutors’ cassation appeals, canceled the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling, and appointed a new hearing in the appellate instance court.
Case No. 914/1068/24 dated 15/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar lawsuit (Case No. 914/927/19), which was closed. Adding a claim to declare a state act invalid does not change the essence of the dispute, as this claim is derivative of the previous ones. Therefore, the court concluded that there is a repeated appeal with the same subject of dispute, between the same parties and on the same grounds.
Case No. 441/1100/16 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the following arguments: testimony of witnesses and experts confirmed that PERSON_6 was driving the VAZ car and drove onto the oncoming lane, where he collided with an IVECO bus. All conducted examinations were recognized as admissible evidence, as they were carried out in compliance with procedural requirements. The defense’s arguments about evidence falsification and violation of the right to defense were deemed unfounded.
Case No. 642/6646/23 dated 21/01/2025
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the imposed punishment is fair and justified, as it took into account all essential circumstances of the case: the degree of crime severity, absence of aggravating circumstances, presence of a mitigating circumstance in the form of guilt admission, positive personal characteristics, but also the fact that the convicted person deliberately ignored his constitutional duty to protect the Homeland. The court also noted that the punishment was imposed at the minimum level provided by the sanction of the article.
Case No. 335/3926/20 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that the driver violated traffic rules by moving at a speed of 50-60 km/h when the limit was 40 km/h, and did not give way to a pedestrian who
