Case No. 916/2749/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of real estate and land plot sale and purchase agreements between LLC “Financial Company “Central Capital” and LLC “Sauspalm”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff (LLC “Rubicon-II”) filed a claim to invalidate the agreements without claiming restitution, which makes the chosen method of protection ineffective.
2. Invalidating agreements without returning property does not restore the plaintiff’s violated rights.
3. The previous court proceedings in case No. 916/2330/21 had already obliged the plaintiff to return property to LLC “Sauspalm”.
4. An effective method of protection should not only declare a transaction invalid but also restore violated rights.
Court Decision: Reject the claim and uphold the decisions of previous instances.
Case No. 922/2154/22 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of additional creditor claims by LLC “Soufflet Agro Ukraine” to LLC “Agrofirma Prestige” in a bankruptcy case.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Previous courts incorrectly assessed evidence and did not conduct a full analysis of creditor claims, unjustifiably rejecting most of LLC “Soufflet Agro Ukraine” claims.
2. Courts did not properly investigate the terms of the supply agreement, additional agreements, and pledge agreements, specifically failing to establish a clear date of obligation occurrence and the procedure for calculating penalty sanctions.
3. The Supreme Court pointed out the need for a comprehensive and thorough examination of provided evidence, particularly primary documents, specifications, and invoices.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel court decisions of previous instances, and refer the case for a new review to the local commercial court for detailed examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 922/3929/23 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for completed construction and installation works and accrual of 3% per annum and inflation losses.
Main Court Arguments:
– Plaintiff fully completed works for 17,447,636.11 UAH
– Defendant partially paid 12,276,410.67 UAH
– Contract terms stipulate that payment depends on tax invoice registration
– Court recognized the legitimacy of recovering the main debt of 5,171,225.45 UAH
– Court rejected 3% per annum and inflation losses as the plaintiff did not comply with contract terms regarding tax invoice registration
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – recovery of the main debt of 5,171,225.45 UAH, but rejection of penalty sanctions.
Case No. 922/2380/19 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of land lease agreements concluded by PERSON_1 with State Geocadaster for creating a farm.
Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 had already exercised the right to obtain a land plot for a farm in 2013
– Repeated land plot acquisition without land auctions violates legislation
– Lease agreements are contestable transactions
– Prosecutor did not prove valid reasons for statute of limitations expiration
Court Decision: Reject the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate land lease agreements and return land plots due to statute of limitations expiration.
The court confirmed previous decisions of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 916/3663/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of a joint activity agreement and recovery of funds for using land plots of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Main Court Arguments:
– The agreement, despite being named “on joint activity”…
(Note: The translation is incomplete as the original text was cut off)joint activity”, is actually a land lease agreement, as it provides for the transfer of a land plot for use with a fixed payment.
– The respondent was unable to use the land plots due to the plaintiff’s notice dated 25.09.2020 about termination of work.
– The court concluded that the respondent did not violate the contract terms and is subject to exemption from land rent for the period of impossibility of land use.
3. Court decision: Uphold the previous court decisions, which refused to satisfy the claim for contract termination and recovery of funds.
Case No. 910/16077/23 dated 28/01/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Recognition of the agreement on amending the land lease agreement for the plot on Galerna Street, 2 in Kyiv.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The land lease agreement was recognized as concluded by a court decision in 2008 but not registered.
2. The decision on land plot transfer was repeatedly amended.
3. The lack of contract registration is related to land plot arrests and legal disputes.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the previous court decisions and referred the case for a new review. The court indicated that the courts must verify:
– Whether the plaintiff acquired the right to lease land plots
– Whether there are grounds for amending the contract
– Whether the plaintiff’s rights were violated
Key conclusion: The court must thoroughly investigate all circumstances of the case and establish the presence or absence of grounds for satisfying the claim.
Case No. 910/5182/24 dated 06/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of additional agreements to the electricity supply contract and recovery of funds due to exceeding the legally permitted price increase.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Additional agreements violate the requirements of the Law “On Public Procurement” as the price increase exceeded 10% of the original contract price
– The purpose of the legislation is to prevent “price dumping” and ensure transparency of public procurement
– Price change over 10% of the original is unlawful regardless of the number of additional agreements
3. Court decision: Uphold the previous court decisions on invalidating the additional agreements and recovering funds from the supplier.
Case No. 910/5602/24 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for services to ensure increased share of electricity production from alternative sources.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The respondent (PJSC “Ukrenergo”) did not pay for services provided by the plaintiff (PJSC “Kharkivenergozbut”) within the time specified in the contract terms, which is a violation of monetary obligation.
2. Service acceptance acts were signed by the parties without objections, confirming the fact of service provision and acceptance.
3. Lack of proper cost coverage in the tariff structure does not exempt the respondent from the obligation to pay the debt and accrued interest.
Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal of PJSC “Ukrenergo”, leave the appellate court ruling and the first instance court decision unchanged, recover 3% per annum and inflation losses from the respondent in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 916/1728/22 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the agreement on biological cleaning of the inlet channel and water body release.
Main arguments of the court:
: The court established that the agreement is a simulated transaction, which actually conceals the transfer of a land plot with a water body for fishery purposes. The Kiliya Interdistrict Water Management Department did not have the authority to transfer the water body for use, as it is only its permanent user. The agreement actually allowed the “Dunayagroservice” company to carry out underTranslation of the provided Ukrainian legal text:
Secret fishing activity without compliance with the procedure established by law.
Court Decision: Recognize the contract as invalid and oblige the company to vacate the water body with an area of 3.9 hectares on Stepovyi Island.
Case No. 910/8984/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the contractor (LLC “Agro Construction”) of unused advance payment, 1% for using monetary funds, and inflation losses under the contract for capital repair of port fencing.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the contractor partially completed the work but did not finish it due to circumstances dependent on the customer (lack of permission from “Ukrzaliznytsia”, presence of obstacles on the land plot).
2. Previous instance courts incorrectly determined the grounds for charging 1% for using funds and inflation losses, without investigating all circumstances of delay and not providing detailed calculation justification.
3. It must be established whether there was actually a delay in fulfilling obligations by the contractor, and in what part.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances regarding charging 1% for using funds and inflation losses, send the case for a new review to thoroughly investigate the circumstances.
Case No. 918/1054/23 dated 06/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the case on insolvency of an individual and approval of debt restructuring plan.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Debt restructuring plan of PERSON_1 does not meet the requirements of the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine, as it does not contain complete and reliable information about the debtor’s property status.
– The debtor did not provide substantiated explanations regarding the circumstances of insolvency and use of credit funds.
– PERSON_1 does not plan to get employed and proposes to write off over 88% of debts without objective reasons.
– The source of repayment of part of the debt (loan from husband) raises doubts due to the lack of guarantees of its receipt.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate commercial court on closing the proceedings in the case of insolvency of PERSON_1 due to her bad faith behavior.
Case No. 907/214/20 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the contract for scientific support and release of land plots with a total area of 108.5517 hectares.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Contract No. 14 is a simulated transaction, which is actually a hidden land lease agreement.
2. The permanent land user (Institute) does not have the right to transfer state-owned land plots to third parties.
3. The contract contains all essential terms of a lease agreement: defined object, term, lease payment, right to use the land plot.
Court Decision: Recognize Contract No. 14 as invalid and oblige LLC “Agro Ecotechnique” to vacate land plots with an area of 108.5517 hectares.
Case No. 922/826/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring illegal the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on granting a land plot to “Europartner Company” and returning this land plot.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The land plot with an area of 2.7142 hectares was granted to the company without conducting land auctions, which violates the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine.
2. The area of the granted land plot is almost 185 times larger than the area of existing non-residential premises, which indicates a hidden purpose of obtaining land for new construction.
3. At the time of real estate acquisition, the land plot was not yet formed, therefore there are no grounds for its non-competitive acquisition.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s claim – refuse to declare illegal the points of the city council’s decision, but oblige the company to return the land plot to Kharkiv.Here is the translation of the provided text:
to the City Council.
Case No. 907/409/24 dated 28/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Establishing a land easement in favor of LLC “Evrotranstelecom” for the operation of fiber-optic communication lines on the land plot of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The owner (user) of the land plot has the right to initiate the establishment of a land easement, contrary to previous court decisions.
– Courts of previous instances incorrectly believed that the right to claim the establishment of an easement belongs exclusively to the person intending to use the land plot.
– Principles of fairness and good faith require the settlement of actual legal relations between the parties.
3. Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the local commercial court for a detailed examination of the case circumstances.
Case No. 904/4463/23 dated 06/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance of a private executor in cassation proceedings.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court evaluated the provided evidence regarding the incurred legal assistance expenses
– Established that the legal position of the private executor was consistent and did not change
– Concluded that the preparation of the case in cassation proceedings did not require significant legal efforts
– Guided by the criteria of reality, proportionality, and reasonableness of expenses
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the motion of the private executor and recover from JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Dnipropetrovskgaz” 5,000 hryvnias of court expenses instead of the claimed 10,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 922/2817/18 (910/1119/16) dated 06/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of electronic auctions for the sale of an unfinished construction object belonging to LLC “Mega Aster”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the state executor violated the procedure for conducting electronic auctions, in particular, by notifying LLC “Mega Aster” about the results of the property valuation report review only after the auction.
2. This deprived the company of the opportunity to challenge the property valuation and effectively exercise its right to protection.
3. The auction procedure violation was systemic and could not be rectified by returning the company’s complaint without consideration due to procedural deficiencies.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of LLC “BC-Vesta” unsatisfied and confirm previous court decisions on invalidating the electronic auctions.
Case No. 910/22269/15 dated 07/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – complaint of the Ukrainian Music Alliance against the actions of a private executor regarding the recovery of monetary funds during the forced execution of a court decision.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the private executor acted within the law by transferring funds that were received to the organization’s account for the execution of the court decision. Secondly, the Union did not prove that the funds belong to third parties and cannot be recovered. Thirdly, the money is generic items that can be freely replaced and are therefore subject to recovery.
The court decided to leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, thereby confirming the legitimacy of the private executor’s actions.
Case No. 918/822/23 dated 23/01/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of monetary claims of creditors in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Tradeks”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the monetary claims of three creditors: PJSC “DAK”, LLC “VDM-Group”, and PERSON_1.
2. Regarding PJSC “DAK” – additional claims of 2,171,939.22 UAH were recognized as justified, accrued for delay in the execution of loan and supply agreements.
3. Concerning LLC “VDM-Group” – pConfirmed claims for 7,029,859.07 UAH for undelivered equipment, partially rejected due to arithmetic errors.
4. For PERSON_1, monetary claims of 61,810,808.59 UAH were recognized under the guarantee service agreement, as the contract was not declared invalid.
Court decision: To leave the previous court decisions on recognizing creditors’ monetary claims in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Tradex” unchanged.
Case No. 916/3559/22 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid the real estate purchase and sale agreement of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and reclaiming the property back to the state.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The disputed real estate is military property that could only be alienated by a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. At the time of contract signing, the permission granted by Isaienko D.V. had been canceled by the Minister of Defense’s order dated 02.10.2004.
3. The state enterprise did not have the right to independently dispose of military property without a corresponding CMU decision.
4. The plaintiff (prosecutor’s office) missed the statute of limitations, as the property alienation was known as early as 2005-2008.
Court decision: To leave the court decisions of previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim due to missed statute of limitations.
Case No. 922/851/21 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid the purchase and sale agreement of municipal real estate and returning it to the territorial community.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Privatization of municipal property occurred with legislative violations, as the tenant did not make improvements to the premises worth at least 25% of their value.
2. Kharkiv City Council chose an illegal privatization method through redemption, which made it impossible to obtain maximum benefit for the city budget.
3. PERSON_1 and Firm “Sotrudnichestvo” acted in bad faith, being aware of the privatization procedure’s non-compliance with legislation.
Court decision: To satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, declare the purchase and sale agreement invalid, and return the non-residential premises to the ownership of the Kharkiv city territorial community.
Case No. 907/13/21 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance of a private executor in a debt collection case.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for distributing court expenses, particularly legal assistance expenses, guided by the provisions of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
2. It was established that the private executor provided all necessary evidence of expenses incurred: legal assistance agreement, work completion certificate, and payment confirmation.
3. The defendant did not raise any objections to the expense amount, therefore the court considers the claimed sum of 10,000 UAH reasonable and proportionate to the case complexity.
Court decision: To satisfy the private executor’s application and recover 10,000 UAH of legal assistance expenses from JSC “Zakarpattgaz”.
Case No. 910/7497/24 dated 07/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of Supplementary Agreement No. 5 dated 03.06.2024 to the individual natural gas purchase and sale contract.
Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court considers that the bank’s prohibition to make payments under bank guarantees is not directly related to the subject of the claim, violates the bank’s and beneficiary’s rights, creates unjustified obstacles for obligation fulfillment, and is not proportionate to the stated claims. The bank’s guarantee performance does not affect the plaintiff’s rights, as the plaintiff is not a party to the guarantee transaction.
Court decision: To cancel the previous instances’ rulings and refuse to satisfy the interim measure application.
Case No. 025
Subject of Dispute – Termination of Share Purchase Agreement and Recovery of Penalty Amounting to Over 2 Billion Hryvnias.
The court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. The key arguments were previous court decisions in this case, a detailed analysis of the contract terms, and the absence of indisputable evidence of violation of the plaintiff’s rights. The court also took into account the procedural specifics of the case and the consistency of legal positions of previous instances.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous court instances.
Case No. 910/15462/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on Cancellation of Registration Action Regarding Change of Ultimate Beneficial Owners of “VG Production” Company.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Plaintiff (LLC “VG Production”) attempts to challenge the Ministry of Justice order canceling the registration action on changing ultimate beneficial owners.
2. The court established that the claims are essentially aimed at protecting corporate rights of a participant – Veres Holding Limited and its indirect owners.
3. The Supreme Court agreed with previous court instances that the plaintiff’s corporate rights were not violated by the challenged order, as the management body’s powers cannot be equated with the corporate rights of its participants.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 920/1398/21 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition and Inclusion of Creditor Claims of LLC “Verdict Capital” against Debtor Miroshnychenko V.M. in Insolvency Proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that the creditor’s claims arose from a credit agreement and guarantee agreement, confirmed by a court decision dated 01.12.2011. Second, the court rejected the debtor’s arguments about claim repayment due to bankruptcy of an individual entrepreneur, as the obligations arose outside entrepreneurial activity. Third, the court pointed to the need for detailed verification of creditor claims while observing the principles of adversarial proceedings and enhanced standard of proof.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the resolution of the appellate commercial court and referred the case for new consideration to additional verification of circumstances and evidence.
Case No. 917/730/22 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute on Termination of Lease Agreement and Return of Leased Property between JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” and Individual Entrepreneur Baktybayev A.T.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed evidence, including additional agreements dated 30.01.2018 and 23.05.2018, and concluded that they were actually concluded, despite the respondent’s claims of non-conclusion.
2. The expert examination conclusion on the non-authenticity of the respondent’s signature on the agreements was rejected due to improper procedure for obtaining signature samples and the respondent’s evasion from providing such samples to the court.
3. The court established that the lessor timely notified about lease agreement termination, and the agreement ceased on 30.06.2018 and was not automatically extended.
Court Decision: Uphold the resolution of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court dated 07.11.2024, which supports the claim of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” on lease agreement termination and property return.
Case No. 904/82/22 (904/4240/22) dated 06/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of property from former company participants who received property during bankruptcy proceedings and transferred it to other persons through donation agreements.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The debtor (company) transferred property to
