Here is the translation of the provided legal texts:
Case No. 446/1511/15-c dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that when transferring military town buildings in 1995, the city council acquired the right to a part of the land plot necessary for servicing this property. When the defendant purchased the checkpoint building from the city council in 2003, she also acquired the right to use the corresponding part of the land plot. The prosecutor did not prove that unauthorized construction was carried out specifically on lands remaining in the possession of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
Case No. 947/11982/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant was exempted from criminal liability for fraud due to the expiration of statute of limitations (non-rehabilitative grounds), which does not release her from the obligation to compensate for the damage caused. The amount of property damage was determined according to the sum established in the ruling on criminal proceedings termination – 47,750 UAH. The court also took into account that the statute of limitations was not missed, as its course begins from the moment a person appears in criminal proceedings with the status of a suspect.
Case No. 523/5804/23 dated 22/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from illegal possession, which was subject to foreclosure under a currency loan during the moratorium period. The court was guided by the following: 1) at the time of foreclosure on the apartment, a moratorium on foreclosure of housing for currency loans was in effect; 2) the apartment was the plaintiff’s only housing with an area less than 140 sq.m.; 3) the financial company had no right to alienate the apartment to a third party, as it did not legally acquire ownership due to the moratorium. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision to recover the apartment from the buyer’s possession in favor of the original owner, as the property was removed from the plaintiff’s possession against her will and in violation of the law.
Case No. 520/3056/22 dated 28/01/2025
When considering the case, the court was guided by the need to deviate from the previous position of the Supreme Court and concluded that the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine prohibiting penalty accrual during quarantine do not apply to penalties for violation of currency legislation. The court also noted that penalties for violation of currency settlement terms are not a type of penalty within the meaning of the Tax Code.
Case No. 460/10443/24 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is attempting to achieve execution of a court decision in another case through a new lawsuit, where the issue of pension supplement calculation was already resolved. The court noted that a special procedure provided by the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure exists for monitoring court decision execution, and filing a new separate lawsuit in such a case is incorrect. Non-execution of a court decision cannot be the subject of a separate court proceeding.
Case No. 420/16276/21 dated 27/01/2025
The court substantiated its decision by stating that unpaid military pension amounts are not part of the inheritance and have a special payment procedure according to the Law “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service”. Such amounts are paid to the deceased pensioner’s family members, not through legal succession, but through a separate procedure – by submitting an application to the Pension Fund within 6 months after the pensioner’s death. Therefore, replacing the party in enforcement proceedings is not an appropriate method of protecting the applicant’s rights.
Case No. 917/50/24 dated 14/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by…
[Note: The last text appears to be cut off and incomplete.]Land plots were provided for use for farming, that is, for use in entrepreneurial activity. By their nature, such legal relations are inherent to economic activity, therefore the dispute is subject to consideration in economic courts, regardless of the participation of an individual. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the consideration of similar disputes in economic courts.
Case No. 756/19178/21 dated 25/09/2024
The court was guided by the fact that securing a claim should not violate the rights of third parties who are not parties to the case. At the time of the arrest, the disputed premises belonged to LLC “Obolonska Mriya”, which was not a party to the dispute. Therefore, imposing an arrest on property belonging to a person who is not a defendant in the case is unlawful and violates the principles of equality of participants in the court process.
Case No. 916/1071/24 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt for natural gas supplied by the “last resort” supplier from a service cooperative.
Main arguments of the court: The court established that the defendant is a collective household consumer, as it was created to meet the needs of residents of multi-apartment buildings. Therefore, the marginal gas price of 7.96 UAH per 1 cubic meter, established for household consumers, should have been applied to it. Since the defendant paid for gas on time at this price, it has no debt to the supplier. The law on debt write-off does not apply in this case, as there is no debt.
Court decision: Denied satisfaction of the claim for debt recovery, as the defendant has fully paid for the supplied gas at the tariff for household consumers.
Case No. 524/6017/22 dated 22/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of compensation for moral damage should be calculated based on the minimum wage established at the time of the case consideration (8000 UAH), and not the special calculated value of 1600 UAH defined in the state budget law. The court also took into account the prolonged period of the person’s investigation (91 months), the fact of detention, and other circumstances that influenced the depth of the plaintiff’s moral suffering.
Case No. 199/5530/15-ц dated 22/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the bank has the right to demand early repayment of the loan both out of court and in court; 2) the condition of the guarantee agreement on its validity until full performance of obligations is not an established term of termination of the guarantee; 3) the bank applied to the court within six months from the moment of sending a demand to the borrower for full debt repayment.
Case No. 910/11202/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of damages of 2.37 billion UAH from persons related to the bank, caused to JSC “Eurogazbank” as a result of risky credit and investment operations.
Main arguments of the court: 1) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate evidence of the unlawfulness of the defendants’ actions and did not establish whether they complied with their fiduciary obligations to act in the bank’s interests. 2) The existence of connection between the defendants and the bank’s borrowers/counterparties was not properly assessed. 3) The courts erroneously placed the burden of proving the existence of a joint intent of the defendants on the plaintiff, although this is not mandatory for joint liability of bank managers.
Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive examination.Case No. 824/124/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court refused to cancel the arbitration decision, guided by the following arguments: 1) inaccuracy in the name of the arbitration body in the contract is not grounds for cancellation of the decision, as the court should interpret such inaccuracies in favor of arbitration; 2) the appointment of one arbitrator instead of three was lawful, as the respondent did not object to this during the arbitration proceedings; 3) the respondent was properly notified about the arbitration proceedings and did not challenge the arbitration’s competence.
Case No. 580/4384/22 dated 28/01/2025
The appellate court refused to open proceedings, considering that a certificate of a serviceman’s presence in the combat zone is not sufficient evidence of the impossibility of filing an appeal in time. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the serviceman’s status and documented performance of combat tasks from 15.01.2023 to 01.11.2024 is a valid reason for missing the appeal deadline. The court also took into account the special circumstances of martial law in the country.
Case No. 127/35000/21 dated 15/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the child has lived with the mother from birth, who created appropriate conditions for the child’s residence and development. The court considered the conclusion of the guardianship authority, the absence of evidence of the mother’s unsatisfactory health condition, and that the child’s residence abroad does not affect the resolution of the dispute about determining the child’s place of residence. Importantly, the court deviated from the previous position of the Supreme Court about the need to return the child to Ukraine to resolve such a dispute.
Case No. 460/18195/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court established that the tax authority improperly revoked the license because: 1) having issued the license based on submitted documents and recognized them as sufficient, the authority cannot later refer to their incompleteness; 2) license revocation is possible only on grounds clearly defined by law; 3) a letter from the State Inspectorate of Architecture and Urban Planning about the absence of information in the register about the acceptance of the facility into operation is not grounds for license revocation, as it does not indicate the unreliability of previously submitted documents.
Case No. 463/9009/21 dated 22/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor and the Ministry of Education and Science missed the statute of limitations, as they became aware of the violation of state rights back in 2009 during the consideration of another case, and also in 2014 within criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the institution of the statute of limitations ensures legal certainty of legal relations and prevents unjustified interference with the respondent’s rights, especially regarding events that occurred in the distant past.
Case No. 757/17452/21-ц dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff, as the director of the NBU department, was an official holding a responsible position under the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” and submitted relevant declarations. Labor relations of such persons fall under the category of public service. Therefore, the dispute regarding payments upon dismissal should be considered under administrative, not civil proceedings.
Case No. 924/25/24 dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the change in the intended purpose of land plots was carried out legally based on an extract from urban planning documentation issued by an authorized body (Khmelnytskyi District Administration).The land plots are located outside the settlement, and the village council did not develop urban planning documentation for this territory, so its rights were not violated when changing the land’s purpose. The court also pointed out that the prosecutor incorrectly identified the body on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed.
Case No. 240/3156/24 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that although the legislator established new, smaller pension sizes for Chornobyl victims in 2021, this violates their right to adequate social protection. The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions where it had already determined that in such cases, the old law provisions providing for a larger pension – 8 minimum age pensions – should be applied.
Case No. 910/8058/24 dated 23/01/2025
The appellate court concluded that filing a lawsuit to terminate obligations is not an abuse of procedural rights, as the plaintiff substantiated their claims with payment documents proving loan repayment, and bankruptcy proceedings against the plaintiff were not initiated at the time of the case review. The court noted that appealing to the court in such a case is an exercise of the right to judicial protection in the manner chosen by the plaintiff.
Case No. 175/5057/21 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Eviction of residents from mortgaged housing and recognition of ownership rights.
The court in its decision was guided by the following: 1) LLC “SV Finance” legally acquired the right of claim under credit and mortgage agreements; 2) PERSON_1, having acquired the disputed property, acquired the status of a mortgagor with all rights and obligations under the mortgage agreement; 3) reconstruction of mortgaged property does not terminate the mortgage, and all reconstructed objects are considered the subject of the mortgage according to the agreement.
The court rejected the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and left unchanged the previous court instances’ decisions refusing to satisfy their counterclaim regarding recognition of ownership rights to the disputed property.
Case No. 914/466/23(914/1968/24) dated 27/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the minutes of the general meeting of LLC “Olimpex Kupe International” regarding the change of the company’s director.
The court was guided by the fact that previously, by a ruling of the appellate court, the company’s management powers were terminated and transferred to the bankruptcy trustee Sokol O.Yu. as the property manager in bankruptcy proceedings. Despite this, a company participant made a decision to appoint a new director, which violates the property manager’s rights. The court also considered that the prohibition of registration actions is an adequate method of securing the claim, as it fixes the current state of management bodies until the dispute is resolved and does not create unjustified obstacles in the legal entity’s activities.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the previous instances’ decisions on securing the claim by prohibiting registration actions regarding the change of the company’s director.
Case No. 826/11887/18 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the issue of distributing court expenses should be resolved by the court based on the case review results, and evidence of court fee payment was present in the case materials. The appellate court incorrectly applied procedural law norms when refusing to consider a motion for an additional decision due to an allegedly missed deadline. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court previously clarified that court expenses for a cassation appeal should be distributed during a new case review.
Case No. 620/3530/22 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Refusal of the Pension Fund of Ukraine to include periods of work by a Ukrainian citizen in the Russian Federation from 2007 to 2018 in the insurance record.Periods when Appointing an Old-Age Pension. The Court was guided by the following: 1) at the time of the person’s application for pension assignment, international agreements were in force that provided for mutual crediting of work experience acquired in participating countries; 2) the fact of work is confirmed by properly executed records in the work book; 3) the absence of information about insurance contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation and the inability to confirm them due to the termination of cooperation with the Russian Federation cannot be grounds for refusing to credit the work experience.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which satisfied the claim and obliged the Pension Fund to credit the disputed work periods to the plaintiff’s insurance experience.
Case No. 906/1261/20 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery of debt and penalty from LLC ‘Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine’ from JSC ‘Zhytomyrgaz’ totaling over 17.7 million hryvnias. The Court considered the cassation appeal only in terms of collecting a penalty of 796,298.38 hryvnias. The Court established that the cassation appeal was filed on two grounds – under paragraphs 1 and 4 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. In terms of the first ground, cassation proceedings were closed, and in terms of the second ground, the appeal was recognized as unfounded.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances regarding the collection of penalty, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 520/15205/17 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of the assignment of claim rights under credit and mortgage agreements from a bank to an individual. The Court was guided by the following: 1) assignment of claim rights under a credit agreement in favor of an individual is possible if the bank is in liquidation procedure; 2) the disputed agreement is a purchase and sale agreement of property rights, not a factoring agreement, and therefore does not require the acquirer to have the status of a financial institution; 3) the plaintiffs did not prove violation of their rights as a result of the disputed agreement.
The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower instances and refused to satisfy the claim.
Case No. 369/11387/22 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: the prosecutor demanded cancellation of state registration and removal of obstacles in using 15 forestry land plots that were illegally transferred to private ownership. The Court was guided by the fact that since the disputed land plots have already left state possession and ownership rights are registered to a private person, the appropriate method of protecting state rights is a vindicatory claim (recovery of property from illegal possession), not a negatory claim (removal of obstacles in use) chosen by the prosecutor. Recovery of land plots also requires an assessment of the good faith of their actual possessor and the proportionality of interference with their property rights.
The Court refused to satisfy the claim due to the prosecutor choosing an inappropriate method of protecting the violated right.
Case No. 910/10618/23 dated 16/01/2025
The Court was guided by the fact that the disputed premises are auxiliary because: 1) they were designed as an attic; 2) there is no evidence of the absence of common building engineering equipment; 3) entry is made from the stairwell of the entrance; 4) the premises are not separated into a separate fire compartment. At the same time, the court noted that the actual use of premises for rent does not change their legal status as auxiliary.
Case No. 932/3641/22 dated 15/01/2025
The Court in considering the case was guided by the following: 1) the debtor under a credit agreement, who is different from the mortgagor, has the right to challenge the registration of ownership of the mortgage subject, as they are responsible to the mortgagor; 2) for extrajudicial foreclosure on the mortgage subject, the bank must…
