Case No. 937/4169/20 dated 06/02/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the conclusion of the post-mortem forensic psychiatric examination indicated only that the disease ‘significantly influenced’ but did not exclude the ability to understand one’s actions; 2) medical documents testified to the clear consciousness of the patient; 3) the testator logically disposed of only part of the property, which indicates the awareness of her actions.
Case No. 160/2592/23 dated 05/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) military service is a valid reason for restoring the missed term for appealing to court; 2) during conscription, the requirement for conducting a medical examination was not met; 3) the requirement to be discharged from military service is not an appropriate method of protecting the violated right, as it goes beyond the disputed legal relations and does not restore the violated right.
Case No. 920/1473/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of a clause in a supply agreement containing an arbitration clause on transferring disputes to the Arbitration Court at the Association of Ukrainian Banks. The court was guided by the fact that the arbitration agreement is not a transaction in the understanding of the Civil Code, but a procedural contract. The issue of invalidity of the arbitration agreement should be considered not as a claim, but as a procedural matter. The claim to declare the arbitration agreement invalid cannot be the sole subject of the lawsuit, as it is essentially a dispute about jurisdiction. Such a dispute is not subject to consideration in commercial courts. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, as the dispute is not subject to consideration in commercial courts.
Case No. 924/396/24 dated 20/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: challenging the actions of a private executor regarding refusal to suspend enforcement proceedings for forced collection of gas debt. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the debtor (Shepetivkagaz) is included in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in the natural gas market; 2) the collected debt falls under the Law on Resolving Crisis Phenomena in the Gas Market; 3) the private executor is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings for such debt on the basis of law. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, which satisfied the debtor’s complaint and obliged the private executor to suspend enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 902/834/23 dated 04/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the religious organization did not make changes to its official name within the established period and did not submit the corresponding changes to the statute for state registration. As a result, its statute lost validity in terms of the name, and the organization lost the status of a religious organization whose statute is registered in the manner prescribed by law. Accordingly, it cannot be a subject of the right of permanent land use.
Case No. 906/1168/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – recognition of an additional agreement between JSC ‘Zhytomyroblenерgo’ and LLC ‘FPS Flexibles Ukraine’. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision.The Supreme Court decided to close the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds of appeal and refuse to satisfy the cassation appeal on other grounds. The court agreed with the decisions of the previous instance courts, finding no grounds for their cancellation or modification. Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of JSC ‘Zhytomyroblenergo’.
Case No. 922/2154/22 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of dispute – consideration of creditor claims by LLC ‘Trade House ‘Novaagro’ against the debtor LLC ‘Agrofirma Prestizh’ for an amount of over 5.3 million UAH, arising from assignment of claim rights agreements. The appellate court refused to recognize the creditor claims, as it believed that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of debt – original main contracts and proof of non-payment by the debtor under the assignment of claim rights agreements. The court also referred to the fact that some of the main contracts, under which the assignment of claim rights occurred, were declared invalid in other court cases.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review, as the appellate court did not properly investigate all circumstances of the case – did not request original documents when there were doubts, did not clarify with the debtor information regarding payment, and also did not take into account that the invalidity of the main contract does not automatically invalidate the assignment of claim rights agreement.
Case No. 991/2380/24 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute – state’s claim for recognition of unjustified assets and their recovery in state revenue.
Unfortunately, from the provided introductory and operative parts of the ruling, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as the motivational part of the decision is absent. The only thing that can be seen is that the appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the first instance court, as it left the decision unchanged.
The appellate court refused to satisfy the appellate appeals and left unchanged the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated 17.09.2024.
Case No. 916/2079/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove which of their rights were violated by the contested meeting decisions. Although there were certain procedural violations during the meeting, the plaintiff knew about its conduct and participated in it. At the same time, he did not express disagreement with the content of the adopted decisions, but only pointed to formal violations. The court also took into account that canceling the meeting decisions could negatively affect the activities of the OSBB and the interests of other co-owners.
Case No. 910/8984/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery by the Administration of Seaports of Ukraine from LLC ‘Agro Construction’ of monetary funds in the amount of over 10 million hryvnias.
The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, as it found the need for additional consideration of the issue of the legitimacy of recovering 1% for using monetary funds and inflation losses. The court decided that these issues require more detailed study and a new review in the first instance court, while the rest of the claims were substantiated and confirmed by proper evidence.
Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances in part of the collection…Regarding the accrual of interest for the use of funds and inflationary losses (approximately 2 million UAH) and sent the case in this part for a new review, leaving the rest of the decision unchanged.
Case No. 914/4064/21 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of dispute – refusal to impose joint liability on the director of LLC “Muzenidis Travel Lviv” for not filing a bankruptcy petition in case of threat of insolvency. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of the debtor’s obligations to creditors was less than the value of all its assets, including accounts receivable. The court established the absence of documentary confirmation of the threat of insolvency of the debtor before the bankruptcy case was opened. The court also noted that to impose joint liability, it is necessary to prove the simultaneous presence of two conditions: violation of the one-month period for filing a lawsuit and the presence of signs of insolvency threat. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances refusing to satisfy the application for imposing joint liability on the debtor’s director.
Case No. 372/3757/22 dated 05/02/2025
The court established that PERSON_1 is hindering the bank in exercising ownership rights to the apartment, as having lost ownership due to foreclosure, continues to use it and rent it out. At the same time, eviction without providing alternative housing is lawful, since the apartment was purchased with a loan secured by the mortgage of this housing. The court also took into account the effect of martial law in Ukraine.
Case No. 910/3264/19 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: invalidation of a unilateral transaction – LLC “Solarenergo” statement on offsetting homogeneous monetary claims against the debt under a credit agreement. Main arguments of the court: 1) In case No. 910/20978/15, the legality of offsetting counterclaims and termination of credit relations between LLC “Solarenergo” and PJSC “Zlatobank” was already established. 2) According to the principle of legal certainty (res judicata), a final court decision cannot be questioned. 3) Since the claims are unfounded in essence, there are no grounds for applying the statute of limitations. Court decision: Rejected the claim of the National Bank of Ukraine to declare a unilateral transaction invalid.
Case No. 569/2405/24 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute – declaring illegal the bank’s accrual of interest and penalties on a foreign currency loan after sending a demand for early loan repayment and restructuring. The court was guided by the fact that after the bank sent a demand for early loan repayment in 2014, the bank lost the right to accrue additional interest and penalties. When restructuring in 2021, the bank had to take into account only the amount of debt that was fixed in the demand for early repayment (254,079.39 UAH), and not accrue additional amounts. The court also took into account that the restructuring of foreign currency loans is mandatory under the law, so the bank must carry it out correctly. The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which declared the bank’s accrual of additional interest and penalties illegal and obliged the bank.Here is the translation of the provided legal text:
NK to perform a new calculation of debt for restructuring.
Case No. 925/1536/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the tenant (plaintiff) violated the lease agreement terms by arbitrarily increasing the object areas and improperly registering ownership rights to temporary structures without permit documents. Such actions prevent the application of the good faith land user principle and deprive her of the preferential right to conclude new lease agreements. The court also noted that the request to cancel city council decisions is an inappropriate method of protection, as the method of protection in the form of recognizing additional agreements as concluded does not require additional protection methods.
Case No. 914/454/24 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute: invalidation of a unilateral legal act in the form of a statement on offsetting mutual homogeneous claims between electricity market participants. Main court arguments: 1) A statement on offsetting mutual claims is a unilateral legal act that does not require the consent of the other party unless otherwise established by law or contract. 2) Restrictions on offsetting mutual claims provided by Electricity Market Rules do not apply to obligations under a balancing group participation agreement. 3) Disagreement of one party with offsetting mutual homogeneous claims is not grounds for declaring such a legal act invalid in the absence of a direct prohibition in law or contract. Court decision: claim for invalidation of a unilateral legal act was rejected, as the respondent complied with all conditions prescribed by law for offsetting mutual homogeneous claims.
Case No. 910/1848/23 dated 28/01/2025
The appellate court partially satisfied the claim, recovering 3% per annum and inflation losses. The court decided that the suspensive circumstance in the form of debt to ‘Energoatom’ can only be applied to debts for electricity purchased at electronic auctions. Since such debts were not proven, the court considered the claims substantiated.
Case No. 904/4222/23 dated 06/02/2025
Case No. 911/103/24 dated 04/02/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the agricultural receipt contained all necessary details and conditions provided by law; 2) the parties agreed on an alternative payment method for the goods, not with money, but by issuing an agricultural receipt before delivery; 3) the agricultural receipt is a separate type of legal act, which is performed independently of the supply agreement and creates an unconditional obligation.
Case No. 297/2139/19 dated 06/02/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the issue of the disputed fence location between the parties’ land plots was already resolved in the previous court case No. 701/1791/2012, where prejudicial circumstances regarding the fence location were established. The court also took into account that the fence was not rebuilt or moved by the respondent, and the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the respondent occupying an additional part of the land plot.
Case No. 906/830/24 dated 04/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant died before filing the claim (on March 11, 2024), and procedural legal succession is possible only if the person’s death occurred after the case proceedings were opened. The court also took into account that the legislation does not provide for the possibility of considering a dispute with a person who died before going to court and no longer has civil legal capacity.
Case No. 761/9863/23 dated 05/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that a lawyer can confirm their powers not only by a warrant but also by a legal assistance agreement. The court also noted that in the absence of information about the revocation of the certificate for legal practice, there are no grounds to doubt the lawyer’s status. Excessive formalism regarding the form of documents confirming the lawyer’s powers is inadmissible.
Case No. 199/2499/21 dated 29/01/2025
The subject of the dispute concerns the invalidation of purchase and sale agreements for an apartment that was the subject of a mortgage. The court noted that in a case where the property was alienated several times, the proper way to protect the owner’s rights is to recover the property from the last acquirer, rather than invalidating all purchase and sale agreements. The court emphasized that satisfying the claim for property recovery would automatically be grounds for making corresponding changes to the State Register of Rights. The court also pointed out that it cannot cancel decisions regarding claims against defendants who did not file cassation appeals and essentially agreed with the decisions of previous instances. As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceling the decisions of previous instances regarding the invalidation of the original purchase and sale agreement, but maintaining the decision to cancel the state registration of ownership for subsequent property acquirers.
Case No. 912/3030/19 dated 06/02/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the ownership of the trademark was transferred from LLC “Markholder” to JSC “Closed Non-Diversified Venture Corporate Investment Fund “Cepheus” under the agreement dated 30.06.2021. This is a basis for procedural legal succession in accordance with Article 52 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that legal succession is allowed at any stage of the process, and the legal successor has the right to obtain the status of a party in the case at their own discretion.
Case No. 753/5443/22 dated 04/02/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the tenant (a private educational institution) could not use the premises for their intended purpose due to the introduction of martial law and the prohibition of full-time education, as well as the absence of DSNS permission to use the premises as a shelter. Additionally, the court took into account that the landlords did not follow the procedure for unilateral termination of the lease agreement.
Case No. 917/467/24 dated 29/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the claim to recognize the land lease agreement as concluded is not an appropriate method of protection, since the agreement had already been executed by the parties and the lease term had expired.Regarding the Recognition of Property Rights to Immovable Property – the court took into account that there is no evidence of illegal acquisition of property by the plaintiff, the property share purchase agreements have not been declared invalid, and state registration of ownership creates a presumption of legality.
Case No. 904/4463/23 dated 06/02/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the legal position of the executor did not change during the consideration of the case in courts of different instances; 2) the regulatory legal regulation of disputed relations did not change; 3) the arguments of the cassation complaint did not significantly differ from previous ones; 4) some declared legal services were duplicated or did not require separate payment.
Case No. 922/956/24 dated 04/02/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the legal assistance expenses were confirmed by a legal assistance agreement, acceptance-transfer acts of services provided, and correspond to the criteria of reality, necessity, and reasonableness. The court took into account that the list of works provided in the acts corresponds to the content of the agreement and the case materials, which confirm the lawyer’s participation in the case consideration and preparation of procedural documents. The defendant’s arguments about disagreement with the expenses amount were evaluated as subjective.
Case No. 914/2511/23 dated 05/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the premises were built on a land plot that was not allocated for construction, without obtaining necessary permits and documents. Since the land plot owner (city council) objects to the placement of this object and did not provide consent for construction, such property is subject to demolition as unauthorized construction. At the same time, the court noted that registration of ownership rights to unauthorized construction does not change its legal status.
Case No. 910/18874/23 dated 04/02/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the contractor (plaintiff) properly notified the customer about force majeure circumstances (Russian military aggression), which made timely work performance impossible. The parties signed an additional agreement to extend the contract term, and the work was fully completed within the new term. Therefore, the customer had no grounds to demand payment under the bank guarantee, and these funds are subject to return as unjustly acquired.
Case No. 910/7767/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance for representation of interests in the cassation instance court. The court considered the application of LLC ‘Kotlyarevsky Elevator’ for reimbursement of lawyer expenses in cassation proceedings. When determining the amount to be reimbursed, the court evaluated the reasonableness of the claimed expenses and their proportionality to the case complexity, time spent by the lawyer, and the volume of services provided. Taking into account these criteria, the court decided that the amount of 20,000 hryvnias is reasonable and justified. The court partially satisfied the application, recovering from PSP ‘Agrofirma ‘Rodnichok’ in favor of LLC ‘Kotlyarevsky Elevator’ 20,000 hryvnias of legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 922/5348/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the company did not prove the fact of proper…1) notification of the plaintiff about the meeting at which they were excluded; 2) did not provide evidence that the authorized members who participated in the meeting had appropriate powers; 3) the procedure established by the statute for warning a member of the society about the possibility of exclusion due to non-payment of contributions was not followed.
Case No. 911/627/24 dated 06/02/2025
Case No. 759/8056/22 dated 29/01/2025
The cassation instance court pointed out significant violations in the case review – the opinion of the child who has reached 10 years of age was not clarified regarding their place of residence, which is mandatory by law. Also, the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the place of residence of a child who has reached 10 years of age should be determined by mutual consent of parents and the child. Moreover, the conclusion of the guardianship and trusteeship authority, which stated the mother’s refusal to consent to clarifying the child’s opinion, was not properly assessed by the courts.
Case No. 911/899/22 (911/1842/23) dated 06/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of transactions and recovery of property from illegal possession within the bankruptcy case of LLC ‘Sofiya bud group’. The court partially satisfied the cassation complaints, canceling the appellate court’s resolution in terms of resolving the dispute on the merits and leaving the first instance court’s decision in force. In favor of two complainants (PERSON_1 and PERSON_3), it was decided to recover court fees for considering cassation complaints in the amount of 137,409.65 UAH and 8,826.72 UAH, respectively. The cassation complaint of the third complainant (PERSON_2) was left unsatisfied. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaints and modified the court decisions of previous instances.
Case No. 922/1674/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – termination of property lease agreement and recovery of lease payment debt, penalty, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court recognized the requirements for terminating the lease agreement and recovering the main debt as justified, as the lessee violated the contract terms regarding timely lease payment.
2. The court partially satisfied the claims for penalty recovery, pointing out the incorrect application by previous instance courts of regulations on penalty calculation – particularly regarding the penalty amount and calculation period.
3. The court canceled the previous instances’ decisions regarding penalty recovery and legal assistance expenses and referred the case in this part for a new review.
Court decision: the lessee’s cassation complaint was partially satisfied – court decisions were canceled regarding penalty recovery and legal assistance expenses and referred for a new review, with other requirements (regarding contract termination and main debt recovery) remaining unchanged.
Case No. 520/20657/23 dated 06/02/2025
The court established that the State Emergency Service does not have the authority to file such claims, as legislation clearly defines an exhaustive list of cases where the State Emergency Service can be a plaintiff. Accordingly, the prosecutor cannot represent the interests of an authority that itself does not have the right to file such a claim.
