Case No. 127/9440/23 dated 23/01/2025
The court found sufficient evidence that the convicted person was spreading materials calling for the overthrow of power and justifying Russian aggression through her social media page. Key evidence included testimony from a witness who saw anti-Ukrainian publications on her page, protocols of social media page reviews indicating her personal data, and an expert opinion on the content of the publications. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the unproven ownership of the page.
Case No. 148/1273/22 dated 23/01/2025
The court established that the appellate court made significant errors in evaluating evidence. Specifically, the appellate court’s verdict contained substantial discrepancies in the victim’s testimony compared to what she actually said in court. These discrepancies concerned important circumstances – whether the accused heard the victim’s screams, where exactly he was located at the moment of theft discovery, which could have influenced the correct qualification of actions as theft or robbery.
Case No. 752/6632/18 dated 23/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns an accusation of distributing child pornography through the file-sharing program eMule. The court of first instance acquitted the accused, considering the intent to distribute pornographic materials unproven. The appellate court agreed with the acquittal, but for different reasons – due to the lack of evidence of at least one person viewing these materials. The Supreme Court critically assessed the appellate court’s position, indicating that to prove distribution, it is sufficient to establish the fact of uploading files to other users, not necessarily proving their viewing. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new appellate review due to significant procedural violations and unreasonableness of the court’s conclusions.
Case No. 279/4133/20 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the accused’s guilt is confirmed by witness testimonies, crime scene investigation protocols, expert conclusions, and other relevant evidence. The defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence due to procedural violations were deemed unfounded, as all investigative actions were conducted by authorized persons in compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 296/12220/19 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute: challenging a court verdict convicting a person for illegal drug trafficking in places of imprisonment. Main court arguments: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not properly assess important defense arguments regarding the reliability of evidence, particularly audio recordings of covert investigative actions. The expertise could not determine whether these recordings were edited, as copies, not originals, were submitted for examination. The appellate court ignored these circumstances and did not provide convincing reasons for its conclusions, thereby violating criminal procedural law requirements. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 552/3301/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal of a verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal drug circulationCase No. 754/9191/23 dated 22/01/2025
The Court established that the appellate court made significant violations by not providing proper assessment of the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the prosecution’s actions in fulfilling the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, the circumstances regarding the participation of defense counsel PERSON_8 in the case and their non-appearance for familiarization with the materials were not analyzed. Additionally, the appellate court incorrectly calculated the pre-trial investigation terms by including the day of suspicion notification.
Case No. 914/3959/21 dated 27/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns challenging the decisions of the Lviv City Council regarding the annexation of the Malehiv Village Council and related registration actions. The Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff initially applied to the commercial court, where different statute of limitations apply, and actively defended their rights by challenging the decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which were the basis for the challenged city council decisions. The Court also took into account that filing with a jurisdictional violation cannot be an obstacle to access to justice.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances to leave the claim without consideration, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 650/83/23 dated 23/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding sentencing for intentional property damage by arson. The Court was guided by the fact that: 1) the committed crime is serious and generally dangerous, caused significant material damage that was not compensated; 2) the convicted person did not take any measures to compensate for the damages; 3) the personal characteristics and case circumstances do not provide grounds for release from serving the sentence with probation, as this would not ensure the purpose of punishment – correction of the convicted person and prevention of new crimes.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court verdict, which imposed a punishment of 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 639/6950/18 dated 23/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging the court verdict regarding the qualification of the defendant’s actions as hooliganism committed by a group of persons using weapons. The Court justified its decision by the fact that the main motive of the convicted person was a clear disrespect for society, rather than personal hostility towards the victim. This is indicated by brutal behavior in a public place (cafe), obscene language, ignoring the remarks of others, furniture damage, and temporary suspension of the establishment’s work. Importantly, the court relied on eyewitness testimonies that confirmed the provocative nature of the convicted persons’ actions.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the previous court decisions, by which PERSON_8 was convicted of hooliganism and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for pimping and involving a person in prostitution. The court of cassation instance established that during the case review, the first instance court made a significant violation of the procedural law – did not properly explain to the accused her rights and the consequences of the simplified case review procedure (under Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In particular, the court did not ensure that the accused correctly understood the essence of the case circumstances and did not explain to her that she loses the right to appeal these circumstances in the appellate order. The appellate court also did not pay attention to this violation.
The Supreme Court revoked the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 187/149/20 dated 22/01/2025
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court made significant violations, in particular: did not consider the accused’s motion for re-examination of case circumstances; did not take into account that compensation should have been made primarily by the insurance company, not directly by the accused. The court also did not provide proper grounds for its decision.
Case No. 278/2622/23 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding sentencing a person who drove a vehicle while intoxicated and caused a traffic accident with serious consequences.
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the accused committed a serious crime, grossly violating traffic rules – drove a vehicle while intoxicated at a speed of 160 km/h; 2) as a result of the traffic accident, two victims were caused severe and moderate bodily injuries; 3) although the accused sincerely repented, compensated for the damage and has a minor child in his care, the severity of the crime requires a more severe punishment than corrective works.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, which sentenced the convicted person to restriction of liberty for 2 years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 7 years.
Case No. 537/984/20 dated 27/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision in a criminal case charging a group of persons with robbery, theft, and minor bodily injuries.
The court was guided by the fact that part of the charges lost relevance due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. The court also took into account that some actions require reclassification to less serious crimes, and for some episodes, there is no corpus delicti at all. Moreover, the court noted that one of the laws under which the charges were brought had become invalid.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, revoking previous court decisions and adopting a new decision, which closed part of the criminal proceedings, reclassified certain crimes, and sentenced one of the accused to 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 363/2525/17 dated 27/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – cassation appeal by the prosecutor against an acquittal regarding a person accused of official negligence (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for revoking the appellate court’s decision.Here is the translation:
but due to significant violations of criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the law on criminal liability. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 357/12623/21 dated 20/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_6’s guilt was fully proven by a set of evidence: witness testimonies, expert conclusions confirming at least 18 knife and screwdriver strikes to the victim’s body; video recordings from surveillance cameras; blood traces of the victim on the accused’s clothing and tools. The court also took into account that the crime was committed without any reason, with hooligan motives, and the accused, being a doctor, did not provide assistance to the victim.
Case No. 620/4374/24 dated 27/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor missed the deadline for filing a lawsuit, as he was aware of the case circumstances as early as March 2019, when he first filed a similar lawsuit, but filed a new lawsuit only in March 2024. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s correspondence with the Ministry of Environmental Protection cannot be grounds for extending the filing deadlines, and no evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline was provided.
Case No. 380/8514/21 dated 27/01/2025
Subject of dispute: challenging the decision of the Executive Committee of the Lviv City Council on approving urban planning conditions and restrictions for residential house construction. Main arguments of the court: first and appellate instance courts did not properly investigate the compliance of construction intentions with urban planning documentation requirements, particularly the city’s general plan and historical-architectural restrictions, since the land plot is located in the historical area of Lviv. Courts mistakenly focused only on the fact that construction was already completed, without assessing the legality of the decision to provide urban planning conditions. Court decision: to cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new review to the first instance court for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 757/57554/21-k dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s challenge of the lenient sentence imposed on a person who committed theft with home invasion. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the imposed punishment (3 years and 6 months of imprisonment) corresponds to the severity of the crime and the person of the convicted. The court took into account both aggravating circumstances such as the defendant’s previous convictions and mitigating circumstances like sincere repentance and active assistance in the investigation. Importantly, the court reasonably applied the principle of individualization of punishment, imposing it within the sanctions of the article. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s decision unchanged and refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 813/5770/15 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court does not have the authority to review its own ruling in the appellate proceedings. Moreover, the arguments of the new appellate appeal were already the subject of consideration during the previous appellate review of the case under the complaint of another person. The court also noted that the complainants did not prove that the challenged decision directly relates to their rights and interests.Case No. 620/7211/24 dated 27/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that when recalculating pensions in connection with annual indexation, the average wage indicator used when assigning a pension to a specific person should be increased, not the indicator as of October 1, 2017. The court also noted that the provisions of Procedure No. 124 contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” in terms of determining the indexation indicator, and therefore the law as an act of higher legal force should be applied.
Case No. 440/15033/23 dated 27/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that failure to implement an investment program for installing meters cannot be justified by financial difficulties or staff shortages, as these are not force majeure circumstances. Additionally, the existence of a court dispute regarding the amount of debt does not exempt the company from the obligation to make settlements with the gas transportation system operator, as this is necessary for the stable functioning of the gas market. Martial law is also not a basis for non-performance of obligations if the company continues its activities.
Case No. 200/422/24 dated 27/01/2025
The court concluded that when indexing pensions, the average wage indicator used to calculate the pension at its assignment should be applied, not the indicator as of October 1, 2017, as provided by Procedure No. 124. The court emphasized that the provisions of the by-law (Procedure No. 124) contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, and therefore the law as an act of higher legal force should be applied. At the same time, the right to indexation is limited to a 6-month period for appealing to court.
Case No. 638/6886/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Appealing the court verdict against two persons convicted of collaborative activities during the occupation of Izium.
Main arguments of the court:
1) The court established significant violations of criminal procedural law, as the factual circumstances reflected in the indictment do not correspond with the examined evidence.
2) The case materials lack a technical medium with a recording of an important court session where witnesses were interrogated.
3) The appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the defense’s arguments that the enterprise where the accused worked was not part of the occupation administration.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the verdict of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 727/13868/23 dated 27/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the State Geocadaster’s refusal cannot be considered unlawful, as the plaintiff’s land plot is not entered into the State Land Cadastre and has not been assigned a cadastral number, and therefore the relevant documentation is absent in the State Geocadaster. Moreover, the law does not provide for the neighbor’s obligation to provide the plaintiff with documentation regarding their land plot.
Case No. 562/4257/17 dated 28/01/2025
The court noted that the village council, when making such a decision, exercised power management functions in the field of land relations. Obtaining permission to develop a project
