Case No. 600/3723/24-а dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that combat veterans are exempt from paying court fees in cases related to social protection based on the Law “On the Status of War Veterans”. This applies to all cases of social protection, including pension payments, regardless of whether they are directly related to the status of a combat veteran. The court emphasized that the requirement to pay court fees may limit access to justice for persons with limited financial capabilities.
Case No. 240/34080/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the additional remuneration introduced during the period of martial law is a separate type of monetary provision that the legislator classified as a reward. According to the Procedure for Paying Monetary Provision to Military Personnel, rewards are not included in the calculation of health improvement assistance, regardless of their type (monthly or one-time). No regulatory legal act provides for the inclusion of this additional remuneration in the calculation of health improvement assistance.
Case No. 911/2207/21 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: recognition of decisions by the Bucha City Council as illegal and cancellation of land auction results for a land plot that, in Ukrzaliznytsia’s opinion, belongs to railway transport lands. Main arguments of the court: 1) The presence or absence of documents for land use does not change its legal status if it is defined by law; 2) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate evidence regarding the location of railway infrastructure facilities on the disputed plot and did not evaluate them comprehensively; 3) It is necessary to establish whether the Bucha City Council had the authority to dispose of this land plot and whether it could be transferred to private ownership. Court decision: Cancel decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 520/5280/24 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that, according to legislation, a certificate of monetary provision for pension recalculation regarding the allowance for service specifics and bonus should indicate their average amount actually paid for the month when the right to recalculation arose. It was established that for a similar position in January 2023, an allowance of 50% and a bonus of 250% were actually paid, whereas in the plaintiff’s certificate these indicators were indicated as 0%.
Case No. 500/6880/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that after amendments to the Labor Code from 19.07.2022, a three-month period was established for an employee to apply to court regarding wage recovery. Since the plaintiff applied to court on 25.10.2023, when the COVID-19 quarantine (which extended application periods) was no longer in effect, and did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline – the court recognized the application period as missed.
Case No. 903/968/23 dated 27/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns changing the subject of the claim regarding the recovery of a share in the authorized capital of an LLC. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not change the original grounds for the claim, but only supplemented them with new circumstances that became known during the case consideration. At the same time, the main basis of the claim remained unchanged – violation of legal requirements when transferring a share to another person. Changing references to legal norms is not considered a change in the grounds for the claim, as the court can independently apply the appropriate norms.Rights under the principle of ‘court knows the laws’. The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of lower courts regarding the return of a statement of claim modification and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 903/1311/23 dated 15/01/2025
Subject of dispute: cancellation of state registration of a land plot and obligation to return the land plot located within the border strip to the state. The court was guided by the fact that land plots within the border strip established along the state border of Ukraine belong to defense lands and can only be in state ownership. The absence of a separate land management project for establishing the border strip does not indicate its absence, as its dimensions are established by law. Transfer of these lands for use or possession to other entities contradicts the established legal regime and may create threats to national security. The Supreme Court cancelled the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim for returning the land plot to the state.
Case No. 320/1927/23 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – obligation of a disciplinary body member to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a prosecutor based on the plaintiff’s complaint. The court of first instance left the claim without consideration because the plaintiff did not fulfill the requirement to submit documents in paper form, although submitted them through the ‘Electronic Court’ system. The Supreme Court established that at the time of case consideration, the court already had the technical capability to consider the case electronically, therefore the requirement for paper document form was excessive formalism that violated the plaintiff’s right to judicial protection. The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 2а-16282/12/2670 dated 16/01/2025
The court refused to review the case under exceptional circumstances, guided by the fact that although the ECHR recognized violations of PERSON_1’s rights to peaceful assembly and an effective legal remedy, reviewing the case would not restore the violated rights, as the rallies were planned for specific dates in the past (01.11.2012 and 08.11.2012). Regarding PE “VDK” Wine House “Skala”, the ECHR did not establish a violation of its conventional rights.
Case No. 522/20859/20 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of property (residential house and land plot) from illegal possession and cancellation of state registration of rights. The cassation instance court established that the previous instance courts did not properly investigate all evidence in the case. In particular, the court of first instance did not consider the plaintiff’s motion to appoint a forensic handwriting examination to verify her signature on the sale and purchase agreement, and the appellate court unjustifiably refused to attach an expert opinion obtained within criminal proceedings. Such violations made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all evidence.
Case No. 645/1514/23 dated 28/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of the testator’s permanent residence in the disputed house, rather than at the place of registration. Importantly, the testator made a will in favor of her son, which was not cancelled, meaning her will was directed to transfer the property to her son. Contacting utility services and indicating the address of the disputed house during 2010-2018 years is not an indisputable proof of the testator’s permanent residence at the time of death.
[Case No. 910/14453/22 dated 24/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_1, who issued the challenged order, no longer had the powers of the Federation president at the time of its issuance, as he had been dismissed from this position by a decision of an extraordinary Conference. The legitimacy of the decision to dismiss PERSON_1 was confirmed by court decisions in another case. The court also took into account that PERSON_1 as an individual does not have the right to challenge the decision, as it concerns the rights and obligations of the Federation, not him personally.
[Case No. 300/7062/23 dated 29/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that the lawyer’s warrant submitted through the ‘Electronic Court’ system and signed with a qualified electronic signature (QES) has the same legal force as a manually signed document. The court also took into account international standards of electronic justice and the need to ensure effective access to justice in the context of digitalization.
[Case No. 990/47/23 dated 16/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that the High Council of Justice had already implemented the previous court decision by adopting a new decision to retire a judge. Regarding the requirements to oblige the Chairman of the Supreme Court to issue certain orders, the court noted that such requirements go beyond the case, as neither the Chairman of the Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court itself were defendants in the case. The court also emphasized that judicial control can only be established in relation to the subject of power who was a defendant in the case.
[Case No. 761/45216/18 dated 22/01/2025]
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the certificate of ownership is only a document that records the existence of ownership rights but is not a transaction on the basis of which these rights arise. To declare the certificate of ownership invalid, it is necessary to first declare invalid the decision of the body on the basis of which it was issued. Since the plaintiff did not challenge the order of the Main Housing Provision Department, on the basis of which the certificate was issued, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim.
[Case No. 607/5842/24 dated 29/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s decision in a case of acquittal under Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification of aggression against Ukraine). Since only the introductory and operative parts are provided in the document, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court. However, from the operative part, it is clear that the Supreme Court found grounds for canceling the appellate court’s decision and appointing a new review of the case. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the resolution of the Ternopil Appellate Court, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance court.
[Case No. 127/28045/23 dated 22/01/2025]
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the bank acquired ownership of the apartment in an out-of-court manner based on the mortgage agreement dated 13.11.2015, which is valid and effective, as the court refused to declare it invalid in a separate case. The court also took into account that the bank’s ownership right was registered in the state register, and no evidence of the incorrectness of such a record was provided.
[Case No. 344/9526/23 dated 29/01/2025]
The courts refused to accept the application to increase the claims, as the plaintiff essentially filed new independent claims (about…knowledge of terminated obligations under contracts, invalidation of transactions and recovery of property), but did not increase quantitative indicators for the same property-related claim. The courts indicated that such new claims should be filed by submitting a separate lawsuit.
[Case No. 759/13817/18 dated 22/01/2025]
Subject of dispute: invalidation of powers of attorney and land plot sale contracts, through which property was alienated from owners without their will due to forged signatures. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) a new case review after its return from cassation must occur from the preparatory proceedings stage; 2) a notarized real estate sale and purchase agreement signed on behalf of the seller by a third party is deemed not concluded due to the absence of the owner’s will; 3) the proper method of protecting the rights of a person whose property was alienated under an unconcluded contract is a vindication claim (recovery of property from illegal possession), rather than invalidation of the transaction. The Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s resolution regarding the grounds for refusing the claim, indicating that the plaintiffs’ chosen method of protection (invalidation of powers of attorney and the contract) is inappropriate, as it would not lead to restoration of their violated rights.
[Case No. 750/2310/23 dated 28/01/2025]
Subject of dispute – invalidation of a 1995 donation agreement which the plaintiff signed in favor of a person who promised to care for them. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of mistaking the nature of the contract at the time of signing; 2) the donation agreement was properly notarized, and its content was explained to the parties; 3) the contract did not contain any conditions about the donee’s obligation to provide care to the donor, which is a mandatory condition of a lifetime maintenance agreement. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions refusing to satisfy the claim for invalidation of the donation agreement.
[Case No. 638/16811/19 dated 22/01/2025]
Subject of dispute: Kharkiv City Council demands demolition of unauthorized garages and liberation of municipal land. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following: 1) garages were constructed without permit documents on a land plot not allocated for construction; 2) the landowner’s rights are violated by the fact of unauthorized construction, not subsequent registration of rights; 3) demolition of unauthorized construction is an appropriate method of protecting the landowner’s rights. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the Kharkiv City Council’s cassation appeal, supplementing the appellate court’s reasoning with conclusions about the illegality of initial registration of rights to unauthorized garages, and maintained the decision on their demolition.
[Case No. 202/3884/23 dated 29/01/2025]
Subject of dispute – challenging the first instance court’s verdict and appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_8, accused under Part 5 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (collaborative activities). Since only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s resolution are provided, it is impossible to establish specific arguments used by the court. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court found no grounds for cancelling or modifying the challenged court decisions. Following the cassation appeal review, the Supreme Court maintained the previous instances’ decisions and left the defense counsel’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.First Instance and Appellate Courts returned the claim due to missing the 6-month term for filing a lawsuit, without taking into account the plaintiff’s explanations regarding the valid reasons for missing the term (martial law, constant shelling of Kharkiv, previous lawsuit filed against an improper defendant). The courts did not provide proper assessment of all the plaintiff’s arguments and did not substantiate why they consider his reasons invalid.
Case No. 260/2140/22 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that when determining the amount of assistance, the provisions of the special Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans, Guarantees of Their Social Protection” should be applied, not the by-laws of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which limit the rights of war veterans. The court emphasized that the state cannot unilaterally reduce social guarantees for persons who defended its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The court also deviated from its previous position regarding the possibility of limiting such payments during martial law.
Case No. 160/1732/24 dated 29/01/2025
The Appellate Court returned the appeal, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not eliminate the shortcomings regarding non-payment of court fees. However, the Supreme Court established that a document on payment of court fees was submitted along with the appeal, which the Appellate Court did not properly verify. Moreover, improper delivery of court notifications cannot be a basis for limiting access to appellate proceedings.
Case No. 916/5106/23 dated 28/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery by UKRGASBANK of debt in the amount of 3,087,534.68 UAH jointly from the Farming Enterprise ‘YUG’ and an individual. The Cassation Court reviewed the complaint of the defendants against the decisions of previous courts that satisfied the bank’s claim. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the resolution, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as only the operative part of the decision is provided without the reasoning part. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of previous courts, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 640/29330/21 dated 29/01/2025
The court noted that to appeal the cancellation of documents, identifying obvious violations, such as data inaccuracy, is sufficient without mandatory verification. In this case, a discrepancy between the declared and actual area of the object was established, as well as the absence of necessary urban planning conditions and restrictions.
Case No. 990/299/24 dated 16/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff incorrectly identified the defendant as the ‘President of Ukraine represented by the Competition Commission and Advisory Group of Experts’, as these bodies are independent subjects of power with separate powers. Moreover, the Supreme Court as a court of first instance is not competent for cases with a claim against the Competition Commission, and combining proceedings with different jurisdictions is prohibited by law.
Case No. 285/7632/23 dated 22/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the father’s right to communicate with the child is his undeniable right, and communication of a minor child with the father corresponds to the child’s interests. The court took into account that there is no evidence of a negative impact of communication with the father on the child’s development. The court also noted that a temporary departure of the child abroad cannot disproportionately limit the father’s right to communicate with the child.Case No. 260/1720/23 dated 29/01/2025
The cassation instance court found that the courts of previous instances did not investigate important circumstances of the case, specifically: 1) whether the issued urban planning conditions corresponded to the developer’s declared intentions for reconstruction; 2) whether the building had the status of a cultural heritage site at the time of issuing urban planning conditions; 3) whether the development intentions complied with urban planning documentation (city master plan and historical and architectural reference plan).
Case No. 913/720/20(913/267/24) dated 21/01/2025
The court rejected the claim for the following reasons: 1) the defendant’s guilt in the loss of property was not proven, as the property was lost due to the occupation of the territory by the Russian Federation; 2) there is no causal link between the defendant’s actions and the damage caused; 3) the plaintiff has already received compensation for the value of 43 out of 47 vehicles by a court decision on recovering damages from the Russian Federation, and for the other 4, there is a decision on their return.
Case No. 824/12/23 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the applicant proved the loss of original writs of execution through an internal service investigation and supporting documents. A key argument was the absence of writs of execution both from the recoverer and enforcement authorities, as well as the fact that the term for presenting documents for execution was not missed. The court also took into account that issuing a duplicate is a guarantee of the recoverer’s constitutional right to actual execution of a court decision.
Case No. 753/8257/22 dated 22/01/2025
The court rejected the claim because: 1) re-registration of cooperative membership in 2000 did not require notarial registration or wife’s consent; 2) the garage box was commissioned in 2001 and was never owned by the plaintiff or her husband; 3) during the case consideration, the defendant donated the garage to a third party, and the plaintiff did not file a motion to replace the defendant.
Case No. 922/499/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the tenant had rent arrears for the period from 01.01.2023 to 30.06.2023, as they did not receive the corresponding military administration decision on providing a payment exemption for this period; 2) the case materials do not contain evidence of impossibility of using the land plot for the specified period; 3) the presence of rent arrears excludes the possibility of lease contract renewal under Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”, as the tenant did not properly fulfill their contractual obligations.
Case No. 756/1579/24 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant’s representative (lawyer) received the first instance court decision in the electronic cabinet on August 24, 2024, but filed an appeal only on September 25, 2024, thus missing the 30-day term. The court noted that receiving the decision by the representative is equivalent to receiving it by the person themselves, and the date of entering the decision into the Unified State Register of Court Decisions is not significant for calculating the appeal term. No other valid reasons for missing the term were proven by the defendant.
Case No. 824/63/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the applicant complied with all procedural requirements when applying to the court; 2) the debtor did not prove the grounds for refusing to recognize the arbitration decision; 3) the fact that the debtor is a state-owned defense enterprise…The first paragraph appears to be incomplete, so I’ll translate the available text:
The fact that a company operates in a specific industry is not grounds for refusing to recognize an arbitration decision, as it acts as an independent economic entity and must be responsible for its obligations.
Case No. 824/37/24 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the following: 1) a contract with an arbitration clause for dispute resolution in the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce was concluded between the parties; 2) the applicant did not prove that the challenged ICAC decision contradicts the public order of Ukraine; 3) the national court does not have the authority to review the international arbitration decision on the merits of the dispute.
Case No. 804/4134/18 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions by which additional tax obligations were assessed to the company due to recognizing transactions with contractors as unrealistic. The court was guided by the following: 1) primary documents for the operations were signed by persons found guilty in criminal cases and confirmed their non-involvement in the contractors’ activities; 2) contractors did not have the necessary resources to carry out economic operations; 3) the nomenclature of goods allegedly supplied by contractors did not correspond to the goods they purchased according to tax data. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and confirmed the legitimacy of additional tax assessment, as the company failed to prove the reality of economic operations with contractors.
Case No. 359/2722/20 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: invalidation of a purchase and sale agreement for property rights to real estate, concluded between a bank and a financial company. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiffs did not prove a violation of their rights by the disputed purchase and sale agreement of property rights; 2) the consequence of invalidating such an agreement would be the return of property rights from the buyer to the bank, which in no way affects the rights of the plaintiffs as property owners; 3) the absence of violation of the plaintiffs’ rights and legitimate interests is an independent basis for dismissing the claim. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower instance courts and denied satisfaction of the claim to invalidate the purchase and sale agreement of property rights.
Case No. 523/17564/21 dated 22/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the law does not contain restrictions on loan restructuring in the case of a court decision on debt collection; 2) the borrower filed an application for restructuring within the period established by law and provided all necessary documents; 3) the bank did not prove the existence of grounds for refusing restructuring as provided by law.
Case No. 635/4249/20 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of a power of attorney and a purchase and sale agreement for a residential house, which was purchased and later sold by a representative based on this power of attorney. The court was guided by the following: 1) the power of attorney contained the representative’s powers not only to purchase the house but also to dispose of it without restrictions; 2) the fact that the representative did not pay the funds to the principal is not a basis for declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid, but may be the subject of a separate claim; 3) the plaintiff did not prove that the representative acted contrary to her interests or exceeded powers. The court denied satisfaction of the claim, leaving the power of attorney and house purchase and sale agreement in force.
Case No. 824/12/23 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the complaint of PERSON_1 in the case of an application by the credit union “Zaraz”. Since only the introductory part is published in this decision…
(Note: The last paragraph appears to be cut off)The Supreme Court left the appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated September 20, 2024, remained unchanged.
The operative part without the reasoning part makes it impossible to determine the specific arguments the court was guided by when making the decision. The full text of the decision with the court’s reasoning will be available 5 days after the announcement.
Case No. 703/3196/17 dated 24/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of wage arrears and moral damages in connection with non-payment of settlement upon employee dismissal. The court was guided by the following when making the decision: 1) the employee suffered a work-related injury recognized as production-related, therefore is entitled to temporary disability benefits and other prescribed payments; 2) the employee’s state of alcoholic intoxication is not grounds for refusing insurance payments; 3) the amount of average salary for the period of delayed settlement upon dismissal may be reduced by the court taking into account principles of reasonableness and fairness.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim and recovered from the employer in favor of the employee arrears on dismissal payments, compensation for settlement delay, and moral damages.
Case No. 160/21882/24 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that when filing an electronic appeal, the appellant is obligated to provide evidence of sending a copy of the appeal to other case participants. Since the Pension Fund did not provide proof of sending a copy of the appeal to the plaintiff within the established 10-day period, the court correctly returned the appeal. The court emphasized that returning the appeal does not deprive the right to re-apply while observing all procedural requirements.
Case No. 600/3670/22-а dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute: challenging the refusal to issue a construction passport for building a residential house on a land plot in a recreational zone. The court was guided by the following: 1) the disputed land plot is located in a recreational green area zone (R-3), where the law prohibits residential development; 2) urban planning documentation requirements are mandatory for all urban development entities, regardless of the land plot’s intended purpose; 3) non-compliance of development intentions with urban planning documentation is a legitimate basis for refusing to issue a construction passport.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s decision to reject the claim, recognizing the refusal to issue a construction passport as lawful.
Case No. 921/857/23 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the following when making the decision: 1) a fixed fee of 25,000 UAH was agreed between the lawyer and the cooperative, not 30,000 UAH as claimed for recovery; 2) the court has the right to independently reduce legal assistance expenses, guided by principles of proportionality and fairness; 3) considering the case complexity, volume of services provided, and that the plaintiff is an individual, the amount of 10,000 UAH is justified for recovery.
Case No. 685/1196/23 dated 27/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person accused of document forgery and non-execution of a court decision. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as this is only a brief extract from the full resolution. However, the document shows that the case concerns criminal offenses under articles on document forgery (parts 3, 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code) and non-execution of a court decision.
