Case No. 916/1294/21 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Decision of the General Meeting of the OSBB “ZhK Luxembourg” dated 07.04.2017 on Approval of Membership Fees for House and Adjoining Territory Maintenance
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The OSBB Statute does not provide specific requirements for the number of votes to make a decision on contributions, so the decision can be made by a simple majority of votes.
– The plaintiff did not prove a significant violation of her rights by the meeting’s decision, as she had not been interested in the OSBB’s activities for a long time.
– 381 co-owners (60.18% of the total number) voted for the decision, which meets the requirements of the legislation.
– Non-notification about the meeting is not in itself a basis for canceling the decision.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to invalidate the OSBB general meeting decision.
Case No. 905/221/23 (905/917/23) dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery from PrivatBank of 1,400,000 UAH of lease payments made under a financial leasing agreement that was terminated.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The financial leasing agreement is a mixed contract and includes elements of lease and sale.
2. Part of the lease payments is essentially a prepayment for property that was to be transferred to ownership.
3. After terminating the contract, the lessor loses the obligation to transfer property to ownership, so the lessee has the right to demand a refund of paid funds.
Court Decision: Satisfy the claim and recover from PrivatBank in favor of LLC “Klaipeda Group” 1,400,000 UAH of paid lease payments.
Note: The court deviated from previous judicial practice, clearly explaining the mechanism of returning funds when terminating a financial leasing agreement.
Case No. 1/B-294(921/209/24) dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Complaint of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Ternopil Region against the state executor’s resolution on lifting the arrest from the enterprise’s funds, which is in bankruptcy proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, since the enterprise is in a rehabilitation procedure, any actions with its property can be carried out only within the bankruptcy court procedure. Second, the state executor correctly lifted the arrest from the funds, as he did not receive prior consent from the commercial court to impose such an arrest. Third, the Bankruptcy Law takes precedence over the Enforcement Proceedings Law and prohibits any actions with the debtor’s property outside the bankruptcy procedure.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the legitimacy of the previous court instances’ decisions.
Case No. 910/619/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine recognizing LLC “YUKOYIL” guilty of anti-competitive concerted actions during participation in aviation fuel supply tenders.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Supreme Court pointed out that the previous instance courts improperly evaluated the evidence in the case, considering each piece of evidence separately, rather than in aggregate and interconnection.
– The court emphasized the need to apply the “probability of evidence” standard and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
– It was noted that to qualify actions as anti-competitive, it is not necessary to prove the occurrence of negative consequences; it is sufficient to establish the fact of coordinating competitive behavior.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous court instances and send the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for repeated analysis.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
in all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 920/551/23 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of monetary funds between joint-stock companies in the field of nuclear and power engineering.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, previous court decisions have procedural deficiencies that make it impossible to make a fair decision; secondly, it is necessary to additionally investigate all circumstances of the case and evidence; thirdly, there are grounds for sending the case for a new review to more thoroughly examine the materials.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled previous court decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the Commercial Court of Sumy Oblast.
Case No. 34/289-64/200 dated 10/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of a private executor regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings under a credit agreement between Ukrgazbank and LLC “Ukrainian Investment and Engineering Company”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Previously, the court made a decision on partial recognition of the executive document as not subject to execution, in particular, in terms of recovering certain goods from LLC “Plysetskyi Granite Quarry”.
2. The private executor acted lawfully by terminating the enforcement proceedings on the basis of paragraph 5, part 1, article 39 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since part of the executive document was recognized by the court as not subject to execution.
3. The Supreme Court resolution dated 06.12.2021 did not cancel the decision on partial non-execution of the document, therefore, the executor’s actions are legal.
Court decision: To leave Ukrgazbank’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 911/3465/23 dated 04/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for supplied natural gas from PJSC “Centrenergo” for a total amount of 362,733,248.49 UAH.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” is a “last resort” supplier and has the right to supply gas to consumers in the absence of another supplier
– The defendant (PJSC “Centrenergo”) was automatically included in the register of consumers of the “last resort” supplier
– Gas was actually consumed but not paid for, which is confirmed by the gas transportation system operator’s data
– The plaintiff sent invoices for payment in the established procedure
3. Court decision: To leave the decisions of previous instances on recovering the gas debt from PJSC “Centrenergo” in full unchanged.
Case No. 920/451/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of monetary funds under an agreement for providing services for inventory of forestry lands and inclusion of creditor claims in the register.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The contract is mixed, combining elements of contract work and service provision, as it provides for both the creation of technical documentation and entry of data into the register.
2. The expiration of the contract term does not terminate the parties’ obligations if they were not fully performed.
3. The customer’s non-signing of the acceptance certificate is not an indisputable proof of non-provision of services if there is evidence of actual work performance.
Court decision: To cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance to thoroughly examine the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 917/918/21 dated 10/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the inaction of a private executor regarding non-issuance of resolutions on suspension of enforcement proceedings and removal of arHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
1. Enforcement of funds from the debtor’s penalty in a debt collection case.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The penalty of 18,843,768.79 UAH is a sanction for non-fulfillment of a settlement agreement, not a debt for gas supply
– This penalty does not fall under the Law on Debt Settlement in the Gas Market
– The private executor was legally justified in not stopping the enforcement proceedings and not lifting the arrest on the debtor’s funds in terms of penalty collection
– The parties in the settlement agreement clearly defined the mechanism for penalty collection in case of non-fulfillment
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 922/4391/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of additional creditor claims by Ovis Trade LLC against DBK Profit LLC for the amount of 165,987,788.49 UAH in a bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The supplementary agreement dated 10.01.2022 to the guarantee contract, on the basis of which the claims were filed, was declared invalid by a separate court decision.
2. At the time of considering the bankruptcy case, Ovis Trade LLC did not make any claims for the return of funds amounting to 164,450,000 UAH, although such transactions were supposed to take place.
3. Payment orders provided to confirm the claims have a dubious payment purpose and do not refute the existence of a fuel purchase agreement.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of Ovis Trade LLC unsatisfied, supporting the appellate court’s decision to reject additional creditor claims.
Case No. 904/2032/16 (904/1912/23) dated 28/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine’s order on transferring the unified property complex of SE “Research Farm ‘RUNO'” of NAASU to the management of the State Property Fund.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Transfer of the unified property complex occurred without the enterprise’s consent, which violates Regulation No. 1482
– An enterprise in bankruptcy proceedings must be involved in the decision-making process regarding property transfer
– Non-coordination of transfer with the enterprise violates the principles of rule of law and good governance
– Change of management body affects the debtor’s bankruptcy estate and creditors’ rights
3. Court decision: Satisfied the claim of the rehabilitation manager, declared invalid the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine’s order on transferring the unified property complex of SE “Research Farm ‘RUNO'” of NAASU.
Case No. 914/3208/23 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of an electricity supply agreement by a universal service provider between Lvivenerhozbut LLC and SU-27 LLC.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, previous court instances did not fully investigate all circumstances of the case and legal grounds for declaring the agreement invalid. Secondly, procedural violations were identified during the consideration of the case in the appellate commercial court, particularly improper clarification of all legally significant circumstances. Thirdly, the court considers it necessary to additionally analyze evidence and legal grounds for satisfying the claims.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and refer the case for a new hearing to the Western Appellate Commercial Court.
Case No. 910/8714/18 dated 03/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: BARLENCO LTD company forcibly bought out shares of PJSC “Azovstal” from minority shareholder PJSC “Synerhiya-7” at an undervalued price in a squeeze-out procedure.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Share buyout price (0.56Here’s the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
4 UAH) was unfair and artificially undervalued
– BARLENCO LTD Company actually acted as a technical entity in the interests of a group of related companies
– The “lifting of the corporate veil” doctrine can be applied to the defendants
– The fair market value of shares is 6.2442 UAH per share
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the claim of PJSC “Synergiya-7” and recover compensation from the defendants (BARLENCO LTD, METINVEST B.V., PJSC “Azovstal” and the ultimate beneficiary) in the amount of 2,961,656.28 UAH for forcibly purchased shares.
Key Feature: The court consistently adheres to the legal position of protecting minority shareholders’ rights in the squeeze-out procedure.
Case No. 921/534/23 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of PJSC “Ukrainian Innovative Company” to the Subsidiary Enterprise “Ternopil Road Maintenance” for the amount of 7,712,915.42 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court confirmed that PJSC “Ukrinbank” and PJSC “Ukrainian Innovative Company” are the same legal entity with an unchanged identification code.
2. Change of bank name is not a reorganization and does not affect previously acquired obligations.
3. The existence of court decisions of the Commercial Court of Luhansk Region dated 10.02.2021, which confirm the monetary obligations of the debtor, is an indisputable evidence for recognizing creditor claims.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and leave the resolution of the Western Appellate Commercial Court unchanged, i.e., recognize the creditor claims of PJSC “Ukrainian Innovative Company” for a total amount of 7,718,283.42 UAH.
Case No. 914/1314/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Termination of the purchase and sale agreement and recovery of 800,000 UAH between LLC “Budtech-Prom” and PE “TSM Group”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous judicial instances incorrectly assessed the evidence and legally did not qualify the circumstances of the contract. The panel of judges identified procedural violations in the reasoning of lower courts, which did not fully investigate the factual circumstances of the dispute. The Supreme Court considers it necessary to return the case for additional study for a more in-depth analysis of all circumstances.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and send the case for a new review.
Case No. 908/2157/21 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Imposing joint liability on the director of LLC “Telecommunication and Information Systems” for untimely filing for bankruptcy.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The court established that to impose joint liability on the debtor’s manager, it is necessary to clearly determine the amount of such liability and claim recovery of a specific amount. In this case, the creditor did not detail the amount of damages, therefore the claim is premature. Joint liability has a tort nature and is aimed at compensating for damages caused to the debtor and its creditors due to untimely filing for bankruptcy.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court completely canceled previous court decisions and denied the creditor’s application for imposing joint liability on the director.
Case No. 914/2693/23(914/3477/23) dated 28/01/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a unilateral transaction – application for offsetting counter-homogeneous claims dated 03.05.2021.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that at the time of the transaction, the term for PERSON_2’s performance under the loan agreement had not yet expired, as evidenced by the additional agreement dated 26.12.2019.
2. Meanwhile, in case No.Case No. 638/16545/20 has already established the fact of delay and non-fulfillment by PERSON_2 of the loan repayment obligation, which has a prejudicial significance.
3. The court pointed out the impossibility of arbitrarily refuting circumstances established by court decisions that have entered into legal force.
Court decision: The resolution of the appellate court was canceled and the local commercial court’s decision to reject the claim was upheld.
Case No. 916/479/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision and obligation to re-examine the application regarding violation of economic competition legislation.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the plaintiff’s application for recovery of judicial expenses for professional legal assistance. The court considered that the plaintiff initially planned to spend about 10,000 UAH, but then increased the amount to 40,000 UAH. The panel of judges concluded that not all claimed expenses were necessary and proportionate, as the plaintiff’s legal position was consistent, and the lawyer was already familiar with the case from previous instances.
Court decision: The court partially satisfied the application and recovered from the Antimonopoly Committee in favor of the plaintiff 5,000 UAH of judicial expenses instead of the claimed 40,000 UAH.
Case No. 925/1577/20(925/288/23) dated 11/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the property purchase and sale agreement between LLC “Kolos 14” and PE “Irida” within the bankruptcy case.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– JSC “Poltava-bank” was not a party to the original agreement
– The court decision did not contain direct conclusions about the bank’s rights or obligations
– The bank did not prove that the decision directly violated its rights
– The court consistently maintains that a court decision applies only between the parties to the dispute
3. Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal of JSC “Poltava-bank” and leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Interestingly, the court clearly explained that a mere formal reference to a possible impact of the decision is not grounds for appeal.
Case No. 914/2243/24 dated 11/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: The prosecutor appealed to the court in the state’s interests to declare a section of the contract void and recover funds from a construction company.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Ministry of Defense is the authorized body to protect state interests in these legal relations
– The prosecutor observed all necessary procedures before appealing to the court, including notifying the Ministry about possible violations
– The fact that the Ministry did not take active steps to protect state interests is grounds for the prosecutor to represent state interests
3. Court decision: Reject the company’s cassation appeal and leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
The court decision demonstrates a clear position on the prosecutor’s role in protecting state interests and the importance of proper communication between state bodies.
Case No. 916/1301/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by the company “Avgora”.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the parties and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal. The panel of judges established that the previous judicial instances (local and appellate courts) correctly assessed all evidence and adhered to procedural norms. The court recognized that the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision was made within its powers and complies with current legislation.
The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and refused to satisfy the company’s cassation appeal.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 240/1123/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the pension of a person affected by the Chornobyl disaster and obliging the recalculation of the pension in accordance with the previous version of the law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the version of the law adopted in 2021 sets lower pension amounts for Chornobyl disaster victims than previously provided. The Court referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision, which emphasized that the state cannot reduce social guarantees for this category of persons, as this violates their constitutional rights and the principle of social protection.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the claim, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and obliged the Pension Fund to calculate and pay the plaintiff a pension of 6 minimum old-age pensions in accordance with the previous version of the law.
Case No. 520/14808/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the state registrar’s decision to refuse registration of property rights to an apartment.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The dispute is of a public law nature, as it concerns challenging the actions of a state registrar as a subject of authoritative powers.
2. The plaintiff did not question the property rights of other persons but challenged the registrar’s decision’s non-compliance with the law.
3. The subject of review is the legitimacy of the decision to refuse state registration of rights, which falls under administrative jurisdiction.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 240/27445/23 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office challenges the minutes of the State Mineral Reserves Commission meeting and the special permit for subsoil use issued to LLC “Granit Blacksea”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that a change in judicial practice regarding the procedural capacity of the prosecutor is not a valid reason for restoring the missed term for court appeal. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor had the opportunity to apply to the court in a timely manner, and references to a change in law enforcement do not exempt from compliance with procedural terms. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of the legal certainty principle and the need to discipline participants in the court process.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the previous instances’ decisions to return the statement of claim due to a missed procedural term.
Case No. 752/30879/21 dated 05/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Claim for protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation, refutation of unreliable information posted on social networks.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the need to distinguish between facts and value judgments
– It was established that the information was disseminated directly about the plaintiff
– The plaintiff could not unequivocally prove that the Facebook page belonged to the defendant
– The appellate court made procedural errors in evaluating evidence
3. Court Decision: The appellate court’s ruling was canceled, and the case was referred for a new review to the appellate instance.
Important: The court emphasized the need for careful analysis of evidence and adherence to the principle of adversarial proceedings.
Case No. 140/10981/24 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order of the head of the secretariat of the High Council of Justice on establishing a seniority allowance for stateHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
1. Case regarding a municipal employee.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The case concerns labor relations of a Council of Justice Secretariat employee, not directly the powers of the Council of Justice as a judicial governance body.
2. The challenged order is not an act of the Council of Justice within the meaning of Article 266 of the Administrative Procedural Code of Ukraine, and therefore does not fall under the special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
3. Legal relations are not regulated by the Law “On the High Council of Justice” and should be considered under general jurisdiction rules.
Court decision: To leave the appeal of the High Council of Justice unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged.
Case No. 757/36821/23-ц dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim by PERSON_1 against the National Bank of Ukraine for compensation of lost profits and moral damages in connection with improper execution of a state executor’s payment requirement.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The NBU rightfully returned the payment requirement without execution, as the debtor bank is in the liquidation process, and the payment requirement contained technical deficiencies (including a foreign currency account).
2. The plaintiff did not prove the reality of lost profits, as theoretical justification of the possibility of income is not grounds for recovery.
3. There is no evidence of moral damage, as the NBU’s actions were lawful and carried out in accordance with current legislation.
Court decision: Deny the claim of PERSON_1 for recovery of lost profits and moral damages from the National Bank of Ukraine.
Case No. 559/1845/18 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring illegal the city council’s decision on transferring land plot to ownership and canceling state registration of ownership of this plot.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff (MPP “Terenok”) did not prove that the transfer of the land plot to the defendant violates its land use rights.
– Expert examination established that part of the plaintiff’s composition is indeed located on the defendant’s land plot, but this is not grounds for canceling the decision on plot transfer.
– The plaintiff had no legal documents for the disputed land plot.
3. Court decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the first instance court’s decision to deny the claim.
The Supreme Court essentially confirmed that the mere fact of partial location of a building on someone else’s land plot is insufficient to declare the decision on its transfer illegal.
Case No. 296/10894/19 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cancellation of arrests and alienation prohibitions on immovable property and declaring mortgage agreements invalid.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed procedural aspects of compliance with terms for appealing a court decision.
2. It was established that PERSON_2 missed the term for appeal and did not provide convincing valid reasons for its renewal.
3. The court emphasized that the person was obligated to conscientiously monitor receipt of the court decision in their own electronic cabinet.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, and previous instance court rulings unchanged.
Case No. 727/8855/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring illegal the Chernivtsi City Council’s decision on transferring land plot to ownership and declaring invalid the state act on ownership of this land plot.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the court indicated that determining defendants is the plaintiff’s right, and in this case, plaintiffs chose appropriate defendants – Chernivtsi City Council and persons to whom the state land act was issued. Secondly, the appellate court erroneously refused…
