Case No. 759/22972/20 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Qualification of actions of a person who committed an open theft of a mobile phone, and the imposed punishment.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not properly verify evidence regarding the existence of a prior conspiracy of a group of persons during the robbery. The court drew attention to the testimony of the victim and witness, which indicated joint actions of PERSON_6 with unidentified persons during the phone theft. Moreover, the appellate court did not provide detailed reasons for rejecting the prosecutor’s arguments and did not give proper legal assessment of the case circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance to more thoroughly investigate the criminal proceedings circumstances.
Case No. 320/22375/23 dated 06/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the submission of the Ministry of Justice on cancelling a private notary’s certificate for notarial activity.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The submission was made based on reviewing a complaint about the notary’s registration actions in accordance with the special law on state registration
– Procedure No. 357/5 on notary verification does not apply to the registration complaint review procedure
– The Ministry of Justice acted within its powers, reviewing the complaint and submitting the application within 5 working days
– The Higher Qualification Notary Commission should provide the final assessment of the notary’s actions
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, keep the previous appellate court resolution unchanged.
The court decision is professional and legally substantiated.
Case No. 733/792/21 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the court verdict in a criminal case about a robbery committed by a group of persons with prior conspiracy.
Main Arguments of the Court: The appellate court formally approached the review of defense lawyers’ appeals, not properly verifying arguments about the absence of prior conspiracy and the convicted person’s non-involvement in the crime. The cassation instance court pointed to the need for thorough verification of all case circumstances, particularly regarding the presence of crime elements, evidence assessment, and reasons for the adopted decision.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court ruling with assignment of a new review in the appellate instance and choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 710/1468/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, accused under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional moderate bodily injury).
The court left previous court decisions unchanged, as the prosecutor did not provide convincing arguments for verdict cancellation. The Supreme Court judges’ panel analyzed the case materials and concluded that the district and appellate courts correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and legally qualified the accused’s actions. The court considered all circumstances significant for the case, including the absence of previous convictions for PERSON_6 and other mitigating circumstances.
The Supreme Court left the Shpola District Court’s verdict and the Cherkasy Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint – unsatisfied.
Case No. 646/7414/17 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of court decisions in a criminal case regarding PERSON_29 and PERSON_30 under exceptional circumstances based on the European Court of Human Rights decision.
Main Arguments of the Court: The European Court of Human Rights in the case “Sparish and Kutzman v. Ukraine” established several procedural violations, including illegal detentionWithout a court decision, improper detention conditions and transportation. However, the Supreme Court concluded that these violations do not cast doubt on the overall fairness of the judicial proceedings and do not affect the final outcome of the case. The court considers that the finding of Convention violations is not grounds for a complete review of the case, as the ECtHR did not evaluate the court decisions on the merits and did not conclude a violation of the right to a fair trial.
Court decision: To leave the defense lawyer’s applications for review of court decisions unsatisfied, as there are no grounds for their cancellation and referral of the case for a new hearing.
Case No. 306/2328/17 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the verdict of the Svaliava District Court and the ruling of the Transcarpathian Court of Appeal in a criminal case concerning grievous bodily harm and robbery.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require partial review. In particular, the panel of judges drew attention to the need for additional consideration of the episode related to the presentation of charges under Part 2 of Art. 186 of the Criminal Code (robbery). The court considered it necessary to appoint a new appellate hearing for a more detailed examination of the circumstances of the criminal offense and verification of all evidence.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the appellate court ruling in the part of the verdict concerning robbery and appoint a new appellate hearing, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 161/8966/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: State treason by a State Emergency Service employee who switched to the occupation authorities during the Russian-Ukrainian war.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Indisputable evidence established that PERSON_6 voluntarily went to work for the “EMERCOM of DPR” after the occupation of Volnovakha.
2. The woman consciously participated in occupation authorities’ celebrations, in particular on December 27, 2022, at the rescuers’ holiday.
3. Evidence of her cooperation is confirmed by eyewitness testimonies, internet resource review protocols, and colleagues’ testimonies.
Court decision: Leave the verdict unchanged – 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for state treason.
Important: The court thoroughly analyzed all defense arguments and convincingly refuted the version about coercion or lack of intent.
Case No. 404/8741/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, or sending of narcotic drugs).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court reviewed the convict’s cassation complaint and found grounds for partial satisfaction of the complaint. The court concluded that previous court decisions require review in appellate order, as procedural or material errors were likely made during the case consideration. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the appellate court ruling and appoint a new appellate hearing.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal, and appointed a new hearing in the appellate instance court, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 462/1005/23 dated 03/02/2025
The case concerns criminal proceedings about intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.
The court carefully analyzed the evidence and concluded that the man intentionally caused the victim grievous bodily harm, in particular, as a result of his actions, she suffered a spleen rupture with intra-abdominal bleeding. The expertise confirmed that inDamages could have been caused by punches to the face and a kick to the abdomen inflicted by the defendant. The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions and the imposed punishment of 7 years of imprisonment, as well as the recovery of 160,000 UAH in moral damages in favor of the victim, unchanged.
Case No. 335/10825/16 dated 14/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:1. Subject of the dispute: Accusation of a military serviceman PERSON_7 in appropriation of food products and making false entries in an official invoice.2. Main arguments of the court:- The court found the evidence of accusation insufficient for conviction- Expert opinion was deemed inadmissible due to procedural violations in its obtaining- Testimony of key witness PERSON_8 was not examined due to formal procedural restrictions- The court believes that previous court instances did not properly investigate the case materials3. Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and assign a new court hearing in the court of first instance for repeated and more thorough examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 201/1636/22 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the Dnipro Appellate Court’s verdict regarding a person accused of a criminal offense related to illegal drug trafficking (Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the previous appellate court verdict requires review due to the presence of procedural or material violations. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the previous verdict and assign a new hearing in the appellate court, which can ensure a more complete and comprehensive investigation of the criminal proceedings circumstances.Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, cancelled the previous verdict and assigned a new hearing in the appellate court, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 470/795/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Unauthorized leaving of a military unit by a serviceman during martial law.Main arguments of the court:1. PERSON_6 acquired the status of a serviceman as a result of mobilization on March 14, 2022, based on the Presidential Decree on general mobilization.2. He was assigned to military unit NUMBER_3, appointed as a shooter and subsequently deployed to perform combat tasks.3. On October 23, 2022, he unauthorized left the place of service, which is confirmed by official documents of the military unit.Court decision: Leave the local court’s verdict unchanged, recognize PERSON_6 guilty of unauthorized leaving of a military unit and impose a punishment of 5 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 306/2328/17 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation review of the first instance court verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for robbery and causing severe bodily injuries resulting in the victim’s death.Main arguments of the court: The appellate court allowed procedural violations by considering the case without the participation of the defense counsel, who filed a motion to postpone the hearing. The court did not examine the evidence that the defense counsel requested to re-examine and unjustifiably continued the hearing without the defendant. These violations prevented the adoption of a legal and substantiated decision.Court decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and assign a new hearing in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for PERSON_7 in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 733/792/21 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case about robbery,Regarding a citizen of Georgia. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in previous court decisions that require additional review in the appellate court. The court believes that previous instances did not sufficiently investigate the circumstances of the case and provided an incomplete legal assessment of evidence. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new appellate review to ensure the completeness and comprehensiveness of the court proceedings.
Court decision: The cassation complaint was partially satisfied, the appellate court ruling was revoked, a new review was assigned in the appellate court, and a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days was chosen.
Case No. 317/345/20 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation complaint by the defender against the verdict and court ruling in a criminal case about an attempted theft.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court carefully studied the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions are legal and well-founded. The court took into account all evidence in the case and established that the actions of the accused PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 constitute a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 15 and Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The defender’s arguments failed to convince the court of the need to change or cancel previous court decisions.
Court decision: To leave the verdict of the Zaporizhzhia District Court and the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Appellate Court unchanged, and the defender’s cassation complaint – unsatisfied.
Case No. 130/843/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute – criminal proceedings on charges of violating traffic safety rules (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court considered the prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court. The main arguments were that the previous appellate court ruling needed review, as it likely contained procedural violations or incorrect interpretation of case circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments and found it necessary to revoke the previous decision.
The court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, revoked the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court, and appointed a new review in the appellate court, and also released the convicted person from the correctional center.
Case No. 710/1468/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of PERSON_6 in inflicting moderate bodily injuries to her mother.
Main arguments of the court: First, the prosecution did not provide irrefutable evidence that PERSON_6 inflicted bodily injuries to the mother. Second, the court critically evaluated witness testimonies, considering them biased and contradictory. Third, the case materials lack video recordings and evidence of a causal relationship between the accused’s actions and bodily injuries.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the acquittal verdict of PERSON_6 unchanged, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 317/345/20 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding an attempt to secretly steal telephone cables from PJSC “Ukrtelekom”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Evidence of PERSON_7’s guilt is irrefutable: police testimonies, crime scene inspection protocols, identification protocols, expert conclusions confirm the accused’s involvement in the theft attempt.
2. The court thoroughly checked all defense arguments regarding evidence inadmissibility and found them unfounded.
3. Witness testimonies are logical, consistent, and aligned, confirming the prosecution’s version.
Court decision: Leave the district court verdict and appellate court ruling unchanged, the defender’s cassation complaint – unsatisfied.
Case No. 210/4051/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute:Recognition of the Right to Use Residential Premises and Unlawfulness of Refusal to Amend the Apartment Lease Agreement. Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of permanent residence in the disputed apartment, as they remained registered at another address since 2012.
2. There is no evidence of utility payments and apartment maintenance, with existing debt.
3. The plaintiff did not prove an indissoluble connection with the disputed apartment as the sole permanent residence, as they temporarily moved to Kyiv.
4. The court established that the plaintiff occasionally visited the apartment but did not live there permanently.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, refusing the plaintiff’s claims.
[Case No. 908/3468/13 dated 06/02/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Invalidity of Auction Results for Sale of PJSC “Zaporizhzhya Steel Rolling Plant” Property and Share Purchase Agreements.
Main Court Arguments:
– LLC “Veles-Torg, LTD” was not a party to the bankruptcy case No. 908/3468/13
– The court decision did not contain conclusions about the rights and obligations of LLC “Veles-Torg, LTD”
– The connection between the court decision and the complainant’s rights must be obvious and unconditional, not probable
– The court decision in a private law dispute applies only between the parties to the case
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint of LLC “Veles-Torg, LTD” unsatisfied, and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
[Case No. 902/202/24 dated 05/02/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Invalidity of an Additional Agreement to a Gravel-Sand Mixture Supply Contract and Recovery of Overpaid Budget Funds.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court believes that previous court instances improperly investigated the case circumstances. Firstly, the expert opinion on price fluctuations has significant drawbacks – calculation was made for delivery at 60 km, whereas the contract provided for 15 km. Secondly, the supplier did not prove the impossibility of executing the contract at the original price and did not substantiate the reasons for the goods’ price increase. Thirdly, courts did not verify whether price changes could have been anticipated during tender proposal formation.
Court Decision: Cancel decisions of previous court instances and refer the case for new consideration to the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region for additional investigation of case circumstances.
[Case No. 280/7991/23 dated 07/02/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges non-accrual and non-payment of additional remuneration in full during martial law.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The military unit missed the 30-day period for appealing the first instance court decision, which ended on 05.01.2024, and filed a complaint on 06.03.2024.
2. References to martial law and combat tasks are not sufficient grounds for restoring the procedural term, as the military unit has staff responsible for document submission.
3. The complainant did not prove the real impact of wartime circumstances on the impossibility of timely appealing the court decision.
Court Decision: Leave the Military Unit’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
[Case No. 914/466/23(914/2942/23) dated 04/02/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Invalidity of Mortgage and Real Estate Purchase Agreements, and Property Reclamation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the procedural behavior of LLC “Ozirky” and established that the appellate complaint was returned due to non-payment of the full court fee of 1,134,942.40 UAH.
2. The appellate court twice left the complaint without movement, providing an opportunity to eliminate deficiencies, which indicates adherence to the accessibility principle.Justice. 3. The court considers that the requirement to pay court fees is not a restriction of the right of access to court, as this is a general rule for all participants in the judicial process.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of LLC “Ozirky” unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 354/609/15-c dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: The prosecutor seeks to declare invalid the state act for a forest fund land plot and recover it into state ownership.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the land plot was illegally withdrawn from state ownership as a result of criminal actions by local council officials in 2003.
2. The court deviated from previous practice and indicated that declaring the state act invalid is not an effective method of protecting state ownership rights.
3. The only proper method of protection is a vindication claim – recovering the land plot from the last acquirer (LLC “Skorzonera”) through economic court proceedings.
Court decision: Reject the prosecutor’s claim and close proceedings regarding claims against LLC “Skorzonera” due to improper jurisdiction.
Case No. 924/1330/23 dated 28/01/2025
Brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid the reconstruction agreement and acceptance certificate for historical building foundations in Kamianets-Podilskyi.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The agreement is essentially a hidden sale and purchase agreement of municipal property
– Alienation of a cultural heritage object occurred without city council decision
– Procedure for privatization of municipal property was violated
– No approval from cultural heritage protection authority
3. Court decision: Upheld the appellate court’s resolution declaring the agreement and act invalid.
The court emphasized the importance of protecting cultural heritage and adhering to the legally established procedure for municipal property alienation.
Case No. 910/31/24 dated 04/02/2025
Brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Dispute regarding the legitimacy of charging transmission fees for electricity export.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court noted that disputed legal relations arose after amendments to the Transmission System Code, which provided for mandatory payment of transmission tariff by exporters
– Previous instance courts did not thoroughly investigate:
* Nature and content of disputed legal relations
* Contract terms
* Compliance of charges with legislation requirements
* Legal grounds for money refund
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and referred the case for new consideration to thoroughly examine all circumstances.
Key thesis: The court pointed to the necessity of careful analysis of legal grounds for charging electricity transmission fees during export.
Case No. 914/1025/24 dated 28/01/2025
Brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of land lease agreement between LLC “Romzen” and Lviv City Council on new terms.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Lessee (LLC “Romzen”) submitted a draft new agreement within the established period
– Immovable property located on the land plot belongs to the plaintiff
– No evidence of improper land plot use
– No rent payment arrears
3. Court decision: Reject LLC “Romzen’s” claim to recognize the lease agreement as concluded.
Key reason – absence of city council decision on concluding the agreement on new terms, which is mandatory by law.
Case No. 420/17186/22 dated 06/02/2025
Brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging dismissal orders for a police officerPERSON_1 from service due to committing a disciplinary offense.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court deviated from the previous practice, which provided for a more lenient attitude towards official investigations.
– The disciplinary offense consisted of the plaintiff:
a) unreasonably contacting a person while receiving an unlawful benefit
b) improperly controlling service weapon (lost magazine and ammunition)
c) undermining the authority of the police through his actions
– The absence of a court verdict on a criminal offense is not an obstacle to dismissal, as the plaintiff was dismissed for violation of service discipline.
– The plaintiff’s actions discredit the police officer’s title and are incompatible with further service.
3. Court decision: Uphold the resolution of the appellate administrative court refusing to satisfy the claim and support the dismissal of PERSON_1 from police service.
Case No. 280/7883/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to oblige Private Joint Stock Company “Zaporizhzhia Electric Locomotive Repair Plant” to bring the civil defense shelter to readiness.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The prosecutor identified the bodies (State Emergency Service and Management) in whose interests he is filing the lawsuit, but these bodies do not have an independent right to apply to court with such requirements.
2. Legislation does not provide the right for the State Emergency Service and local self-government body to file a lawsuit to bring a protective structure to a state of readiness.
3. The prosecutor did not provide a specific legal basis for filing a lawsuit on behalf of these bodies and did not prove the impossibility of protecting their interests in another way.
Court decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 587/920/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Qualification of actions of a person who committed thefts in summer houses for an amount not exceeding 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court incorrectly closed the criminal proceedings, as the act was committed with penetration into premises, which provides grounds for qualifying it under Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of housing inviolability), rather than closing the proceedings. The court referred to the resolution of the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, which established that such actions are subject to qualification under the article on violation of housing inviolability.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new hearing in the appellate instance court to correctly qualify the person’s actions.
Case No. 740/2085/20 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation review of the verdict of a person accused of illegal possession of firearms and narcotic substances.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and identified procedural violations in previous court decisions. The court found it necessary to cancel part of the previous decisions regarding episodes of pistol and cannabis possession, assigning a new court hearing. At the same time, the court left unchanged the acquittal parts of the verdict regarding the possession of a grenade and amphetamine.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the defender, cancel previous court decisions regarding conviction on some episodes, and assign a new hearing, and release the accused from custody.
Case No. 904/5221/23 dated 28/01/2025
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of the communal property right of the Dnipro City Council for four non-residential premises in a building at 40 Velyka Diivska Street.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The appellate court did not establish the source of financing for the construction of premises
– It was not clarified whether the premises belonged to communal ownershipConstruction moment – Evidence of property acquisition by the city council is insufficient – The court did not take into account previous court decisions and conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the prejudicial circumstances. Court decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and send the case for a new appellate review to further examine the case circumstances.
Case No. 916/4720/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of damages from the Russian Federation in favor of the Ukrainian enterprise “Kherson Stevedoring Company” in the amount of 2,264,494.21 UAH. The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The main arguments were procedural aspects, in particular, incomplete clarification of the case circumstances by lower instance courts and the need for additional evidence examination. The panel of judges considered it necessary to study in more detail the legal grounds for recovering the claimed damages and verify the validity of the claims. The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous judicial acts and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/2487/23 dated 29/01/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of land lease agreements and their return to state ownership.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The prosecutor claimed that land plots were improperly transferred from state to communal ownership without the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
– The court established that these land plots do not have the status of particularly valuable research field lands
– The enterprise that previously used these plots did not have the status of a scientific institution
– Lease agreements were concluded in compliance with the established procedure
3. Court decision: Deny the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate lease agreements and return land plots to the state.
The court decision demonstrates a detailed approach to analyzing land legal relations and strict adherence to procedural norms.
Case No. 909/869/22 dated 28/01/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of the balance sheet holder’s refusal to provide consent to the tenant for making inalienable improvements to the leased state property.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The balance sheet holder did not perform the mandatory procedure of premises inspection and drawing up a visual examination report, as provided by law
– The technical conclusion confirms the unsatisfactory condition of the leased premises
– The respondent has long avoided actions related to considering the tenant’s petition about inalienable improvements
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., recognize the balance sheet holder’s refusal as illegal.
Case No. 917/1291/23 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery from a construction company of inflation charges and 3% per annum for late payment of the village infrastructure development contribution.
2. Key arguments of the court:
– The settlement agreement approved by the appellate court is actually a debt deferral for 3 years, which contradicts procedural legislation
– The terms of the settlement agreement do not contain mutual concessions by the parties
– The agreement provisions can be interpreted ambiguously and potentially violate state interests
– The payment schedule does not comply with the legally established terms of court decision installment
3. Court decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling on approving the settlement agreement and send the case for a new review.
Case No. 160/20358/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute – claim by PJSC “METALLURGICAL PLANT “AZOVSTAL” against tax authorities about recognizing inaction as contra
