Case No. 9901/136/21 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice by a person who was apparently dissatisfied with a certain administrative decision of this body.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that there are no sufficient grounds for satisfying the claim. The panel of judges thoroughly examined all case materials, evaluated the evidence, and concluded that the decision of the High Council of Justice was lawful. The court established that the plaintiff did not provide convincing arguments indicating the unlawfulness of the decision.
The Supreme Court decided to completely reject the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Council of Justice.
Case No. 640/1504/20 dated 12/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the dismissal of a prosecutor and recovering average earnings for the period of forced absence.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff’s dismissal occurred without proper legal grounds
– When calculating average earnings, changes in labor payment legislation must be considered
– Previously, an amount of average earnings of 1,745,215.48 UAH was recovered, which essentially restores the employee’s violated right
3. Court decision: Refuse to recover average earnings since the funds were already transferred previously.
Important: The court strictly adhered to the principle of inadmissibility of double recovery and considered the actual execution of the previous court decision.
Case No. 947/35519/20 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging resolutions in cases of customs violations against the director of LLC “TETIVA” under Article 485 of the Customs Code of Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court: The court was guided by the fact that the Constitutional Court’s decision on the unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of Article 485 of the Customs Code cannot automatically be a basis for reviewing the court decision. First, the court decision refusing the claim is not subject to mandatory execution and therefore cannot be considered “unexecuted”. Second, at the time of the challenged resolutions, the norm was in force, and the Constitutional Court specifically postponed its invalidation by 6 months to prevent violations in the customs sphere.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the decision of the appellate administrative court to refuse to review the case under exceptional circumstances.
Case No. 308/1060/17 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Claiming a land plot located within the “red line” of a street from private ownership in favor of the territorial community of Uzhhorod city.
Main arguments of the court:
The court pointed out that the appellate court incorrectly refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim without investigating the circumstances of the illegal withdrawal of the land plot from communal ownership. The land plot is located within the “red line” of the street, which is land of general use and cannot be transferred to private ownership. The prosecutor legitimately appealed to the court in the state’s interests, as the Uzhhorod City Council made illegal decisions on transferring the land plot.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s resolution and send the case for a new review to establish all case circumstances and assess the legality of the land plot’s withdrawal from communal ownership.
Case No. 127/12891/20 dated 21/08/2024
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Granting the right to apply to the urban planning body to obtain a construction passport without the consent of a co-owner of real estate.Main arguments of the court:
1. The method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective and will not lead to a real solution to obtaining a construction passport.
2. The legislation clearly defines a list of documents for obtaining a construction passport, and the court decision is not included in this list.
3. The respondent does not prevent the plaintiff from applying to urban planning authorities, so there is no need for a court decision granting such a right.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and denied the plaintiff’s claim.
The court deviated from previous positions regarding methods of protecting property co-owners’ rights, emphasizing the need for a thorough analysis of the chosen method of protection.
Case No. 135/250/18 dated 12/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of electronic auctions of real estate belonging to PERSON_4 and recovery of this property in favor of the minor child PERSON_2.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Lack of permission from the guardianship authority to sell the property is not in itself a basis for invalidating the auction
– The child’s rights to residence have not been violated, as the court decision has already settled them into the disputed house
– The property was sold within the framework of enforcement proceedings and therefore cannot be recovered from a bona fide acquirer
3. Court decision: Reject the claims of PERSON_1 to invalidate electronic auctions and recover the property.
The Supreme Court supported the decisions of previous instances and left the cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 761/22863/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim to declare assignment of claim rights agreements between JSC “OTP Bank” and LLC “Digi Finance” invalid.
Main arguments of the court: The court established that the plaintiff and their representative repeatedly did not appear at court hearings, did not report valid reasons for non-appearance, and did not file motions for consideration of the case in their absence. Such procedural behavior indicates abuse of procedural rights and delay of court proceedings. The court believes that the plaintiff was given all opportunities to exercise the right to access to justice, but did not show proper activity.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous instance courts to leave the claim without consideration.
Case No. 420/31238/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the refusal of the Main Directorate of the National Police to credit preferential service years to calendar service years and police service length.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions, which clearly defined that for persons who applied after 19.02.2022, pension assignment is carried out exclusively taking into account calendar service years. The court established that the plaintiff applied on 05.10.2023, that is, after the changes to the pension calculation procedure entered into force, therefore, he is not entitled to preferential service years calculation.
Court decision – leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the previous decision of the appellate administrative court to refuse satisfaction of claims.
Case No. 5015/2060/11 dated 12/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging actions of a private executor regarding determining the debt amount in US dollars during forced execution of a 2011 court decision.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The 2011 court decision determined the debt amount in hryvnias with an equivalent in US dollars, which is an additional guarantee for the creditor.Here is the translation:
– The Executor correctly indicated the total debt amount in dollars, as the loan was issued in foreign currency.
– The entrepreneur is actually evading the execution of a court decision that became legally valid back in 2011.
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint and send the case for a new review to the appellate court to verify the statement of withdrawal of the complaint.
: The court referred to a new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of monetary obligations in foreign currency.
Case No. 908/3275/21 dated 11/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the Department of Social Protection of the Zaporizhzhia City Council of 10,271,544.62 UAH for preferential transportation of citizens by rail in 2019.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The contract between the parties provided compensation of 8,200,000.00 UAH, which the respondent paid in full
– The Zaporizhzhia City Council did not make decisions to increase the compensation amount
– The State, not the local authority, should compensate the full cost of preferential transportation
– The plaintiff incorrectly chose the respondent in the case
3. Court Decision: Reject the claim of Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” for recovery of additional funds.
Case No. 908/582/24 dated 13/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of additional agreements to the natural gas supply contract and recovery of excessively paid budget funds.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Appellate Court unreasonably suspended proceedings, referring to the consideration of a “similar” case in the United Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court
– The Supreme Court established that legal relations in the cases are different in terms of subject composition, subject of dispute, and legal regulation
– Suspension of proceedings is the court’s right, not an obligation, and must be justified
3. Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling on suspension of proceedings and transfer the case for continued consideration.
Case No. 160/9390/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cancellation of a tax notification-decision of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Dnipropetrovsk Region.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court showed excessive formalism when considering the tax authority’s appeal. First, the complaint was filed for the first time within the legally established period. Second, after returning the complaint due to non-payment of court fees, the authority immediately eliminated the deficiency by paying the fee within 15 days. Third, the court took into account that the tax authority’s actions demonstrate good faith procedural behavior and an attempt to exercise the right to appeal.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for repeated consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 400/305/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision regarding penalties for storing alcoholic beverages without excise tax stamps.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position on the legitimacy of returning the appeal due to non-payment of the full court fee. The court determined that the minimum court fee must be at least 0.4 of the subsistence minimum, i.e., 1,453.44 UAH, and the paid amount of 484.50 UAH is insufficient. The panel of judges emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms when paying court fees.
Court Decision: Leave the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate administrativeCourt – without changes.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of Private Enterprise “Donets Energy” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Company “Ryze”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness of the parties to the economic transaction (PE VKP “DONETS” and PJSC “Commercial Bank “Financial Initiative” are controlled by the same person).
2. The creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of actual money transfer, in particular – bank account statements with mandatory details.
3. Copies of payment orders are not considered sufficient proof of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions – unchanged, refusing to recognize creditor claims in the amount of 2,378,746.14 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of Limited Liability Company “Putyvl Agrostandard” to Private Joint Stock Company “Company “Ryze” in the bankruptcy case for the amount of 21,004,611.17 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that LLC “Putyvl Agrostandard” and the bank through which transfers were made are controlled by the same person, which raises doubts about the reality of economic transactions.
2. The creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of payments – in particular, bank account statements with mandatory details.
3. Copies of payment orders provided by the creditor are not considered sufficient proof of actual money transfer, as they are not confirmed by bank statements.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Putyvl Agrostandard”.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of LLC “Agrocompany Glazivska” for the amount of 2,815,000.00 UAH in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Company “Ryze”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the evidence provided by the creditor does not confirm the reality of the economic transaction due to:
1) absence of a bank account statement that would unequivocally confirm the transfer of funds;
2) interconnectedness of LLC “Agrocompany Glazivska” with the debtor through a common ultimate beneficial owner;
3) absence of money movement on the debtor’s bank account.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged previous court decisions refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Agrocompany Glazivska” for the amount of 2,815,000.00 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of LLC “Agrokomplex Nemyriv” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Company “Ryze” for the amount of 498,000 UAH.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The creditor provided copies of contracts and payment orders without proper certification
– It was established that LLC “Agrokomplex Nemyriv” and the bank through which operations were carried out are related to the ultimate beneficial owner
– There are no irrefutable proofs of actual money transfer and performance of economic transactions
– A heightened standard of proof was applied due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness of participants
3. Court Decision: Refuse to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Agrokomplex Nemyriv” in the amount of 498,000 UAH, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of Limited Liability Company “Svyato Trypillia” to Private Joint Stock Company “Company “Ryze” in the bankruptcy caseBankruptcy in the amount of 2,423,776.42 UAH.
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims by Limited Liability Company “Svyato Trypillia” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 2,423,776.42 UAH.
Main Court Arguments:
Firstly, the court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of interconnectedness between the creditor and the debtor, as they are controlled by the same person. Secondly, the creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of actual money transfer, specifically lacking a bank account statement. Thirdly, the provided payment document had technical deficiencies and could not be considered proper evidence of a business transaction.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Svyato Trypillia” for the amount of 2,423,776.42 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims by Limited Liability Company “Agro-Industrial Firm ‘Svitanok'” to Private Joint-Stock Company “Raiz Company” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 1,295,639.75 UAH.
Main Court Arguments: Firstly, the court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of interconnectedness between the parties of the transaction – LLC “Agro-Industrial Firm ‘Svitanok'” and PJSC “Commercial Bank ‘Financial Initiative'” are controlled by the same beneficiary. Secondly, the creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of actual money transfer – specifically, a bank account statement is absent, and the provided payment document had technical deficiencies. Thirdly, the bank’s archival data recorded the absence of fund movement on the debtor’s account.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Agro-Industrial Firm ‘Svitanok'”.
Case No. 920/551/23 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a real estate lease agreement between JSC “VNDIANEN” and JSC “Nasosenergomash” for a total amount of 11,531,493.51 UAH.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court noted that the respondent did not provide convincing evidence of impossibility to fulfill contractual obligations due to force majeure circumstances related to martial law.
2. The court examined the issue of moratorium under CMU Resolution No. 187 but concluded that exceptions exist for the plaintiff, as the National Bank allowed expenditure operations on its accounts.
3. The Supreme Court pointed out the need for more detailed investigation of the case circumstances, particularly regarding the actual impossibility of fulfilling obligations and timely notification of force majeure.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for additional examination of circumstances.
Case No. 725/5612/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the procedure for using an apartment in shared partial ownership of two persons.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court emphasized that establishing the procedure for using shared property does not change the size of co-owners’ shares and does not violate their property rights.
2. Primary importance in regulating relations between co-owners is given to agreement, but in a conflict situation, such a procedure can be established by the court.
3. Slight deviation from proportionality of shares in property use is allowed due to the impossibility of absolutely precise division.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution and uphold the district court decision on allocating to the plaintiff the use of a room with an area of 16.80 sq.m, leaving auxiliary premises in shared use.
Case No. 752/8912/19 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Debt recovery under a loan agreement for 860,282 US dollars between individuals1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt from individuals, with one of the debtors being in bankruptcy proceedings.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Since bankruptcy proceedings have been initiated against PERSON_2, all property disputes involving them must be exclusively considered by the commercial court within the bankruptcy case.
– Bankruptcy legislation has priority and provides for the concentration of all disputes within a single case to ensure creditors’ rights.
– The joint nature of the debt does not change the necessity of transferring the case to the commercial court.
3. Court decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on transferring the case to the commercial court at the location of bankruptcy proceedings.
Case No. 361/5899/23 dated 12/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the order of reprimanding the school director for not publishing the institution’s statute on the official website.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The school director is responsible for ensuring the openness and transparency of the institution’s activities, including by publishing information on the website.
– The fact that another person is appointed as the website administrator does not remove the director’s responsibility for controlling the placement of necessary information.
– The absence of the statute on the school’s website is a violation of the requirements of the Law “On Education” and grounds for disciplinary action.
3. Court decision: Upheld the appellate court’s resolution refusing to cancel the reprimand of the school director.
Case No. 686/9016/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt under a loan agreement for the amount of 367,600 US dollars.
Main arguments of the court: First, the plaintiff was properly notified of court hearings but did not appear twice without valid reasons. Second, the application for consideration of the case in her absence was received after the court hearing and therefore could not be taken into account. Third, the court believes that the plaintiff did not show due diligence in protecting her interests and did not take sufficient measures to timely inform the court.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the previous instances’ decision to leave the claim without consideration.
Case No. 914/3080/20 dated 13/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the actions of the state executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and imposing arrest on the property and funds of the Lviv City Council and its executive committee.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established a procedural violation in notifying case participants: court documents were sent to the electronic cabinet of another legal entity (EDRPOU code 43317547), not the Western Interregional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice (EDRPOU code 43316386).
– The Lviv City Council executive committee’s motion to restore the term for filing a complaint was not properly considered.
3. Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Important: – The court deviated from previous practice regarding notification of participants in court proceedings through the electronic cabinet.
Case No. 520/7911/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on accruing penalties for violation of currency settlement terms.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Penalties for currency operations are regulated by the special Law “On Currency and Currency Operations”, not the Tax Code.
2. Provisions on exemption from penalties during quarantine (COVID-19) do not apply to currency legal relations.
3. The presence of a force majeure certificate is not an indisputable proof of exemptionCourt Decision: Cancellation of Liability.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of currency legislation violation.
Case No. 380/26337/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recalculation of pension for a participant in the liquidation of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident with additional percentage for overtime service.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that for persons whose pensions were assigned before October 2017, the right to preferential pension calculation for overtime service is preserved without additional conditions. The court referred to the constitutional principle of non-retroactivity of laws and inadmissibility of narrowing previously acquired social rights of citizens affected by the Chornobyl catastrophe.
Court Decision: Satisfy the claim of PERSON_1, recognize the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the pension as unlawful, and oblige recalculation according to the rules in effect until October 2017.
Case No. 520/30025/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging orders on inclusion of the cultural heritage site “Kharkiv Settlement” in the list of newly discovered objects and the State Register of Immovable Monuments.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position that the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine properly protects state interests, therefore, the prosecutor’s office has no grounds for intervention. The court emphasized that the prosecutor performs a subsidiary role and can replace the subject of authority only in case of improper protection of state interests, which was not established in this case.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office unsatisfied, and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Private Agricultural Enterprise “Agrofirma Krasnopilska” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raiz Company” in the bankruptcy case for the amount of 1,071,000.00 UAH.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of party interconnectedness and potential interest.
2. The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of actual money transfer, particularly bank account statements with mandatory details.
3. It was established that economic transactions occurred through a bank controlled by the same beneficiaries, which raised additional doubts about the transaction’s reality.
Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions refusing to recognize creditor claims of PAE “Agrofirma Krasnopilska” for the amount of 1,071,000.00 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Shostka Agrostandart” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raiz Company” in the bankruptcy case for the amount of 19,768,604.43 UAH.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that LLC “Shostka Agrostandart” and the bank through which transfers were made are related parties controlled by the same ultimate beneficiary.
2. The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of actual economic transactions – in particular, bank account statements confirming money movement were not provided.
3. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of potential interest and possible fictitious economic transactions.
Court Decision: Deny recognition of creditor claims of LLC “Shostka Agrostandart” for the amount of 19,768,604.43 UAH in the bankruptcy case.Guidelines of PJSC “Rize Company”
Case No. 916/4809/23 dated 11/02/2025:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the tourist base “Chornomor” purchase and sale agreement as invalid due to alleged concealment of ownership rights for certain buildings.
Main Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s intent to mislead
– State registration of property ownership by the State Property Fund is official confirmation of rights
– The plaintiff had the opportunity to verify property information before contract execution
– No evidence of interference with the plaintiff’s ownership registration
Court Decision: Reject the claim to declare the agreement invalid, maintaining the first instance court’s decision.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025 (Private Lease Agricultural Enterprise “Meleni”):
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims for 1,846,324.33 UAH in bankruptcy proceedings.
Main Court Arguments:
– Submitted documents did not confirm the actual economic transaction
– Copies were not properly certified
– Bank account statements confirming fund transfers were not provided
– Established connection between “Meleni” and the bank, raising doubts about evidence credibility
Court Decision: Supreme Court maintained previous court decisions and rejected creditor claims.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025 (LLC “Roztotsske”):
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims for 96,582,962.30 UAH in bankruptcy proceedings.
Main Court Arguments:
– LLC “Roztotsske” and the bank are related parties
– No conclusive proof of economic transactions
– Discrepancies in primary documents
Court Decision: Reject creditor claims of 96,582,962.30 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025 (LLC “Agrarian Perspective”):
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims for 71,643,415.37 UAH for financial assistance agreements.
Main Court Arguments:
– Payment order copies not valid as evidence of actual fund transfer
– No bank statements confirming fund movement
– “Agrarian Perspective” and bank are related parties
– Heightened evidence standard applied
Court Decision: Reject creditor claims of 71,643,415.37 UAH.
Supreme Court supported previous instance decisions.Inspection of Personal Bank Accounts and Restriction of Monetary Funds Disposal Rights.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The bank had the right to terminate contractual relations with the client due to establishing an unacceptably high risk, as the plaintiff used personal accounts for entrepreneurial activities, which violates banking legislation.
2. The bank provided evidence that funds from the individual entrepreneur’s account were transferred to the plaintiff’s personal accounts and withdrawn in cash without proper justification.
3. The bank’s actions comply with legislation on preventing the legalization of criminally obtained income.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and denied the plaintiff’s claim for consumer rights protection.
Case No. 369/96/23 dated 05/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of an incorrect entry in the birth certificate regarding the patronymic of the applicant’s grandfather.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The applicant is attempting to correct a document error to obtain one-time financial assistance after the death of a military serviceman father
– The court considered that due to the occupation of part of Ukrainian territory, the applicant cannot collect a complete document package
– Establishing such a fact has legal significance as it affects the applicant’s property rights
– The appellate court unreasonably denied the application without considering all case circumstances
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court resolution, and maintain the first instance court’s decision on establishing the entry error.
Case No. 753/5657/23 dated 12/02/2025
The case concerns a labor dispute about employee dismissal due to position reduction.
Main Court Arguments: The employer followed all legislative procedures during dismissal – notified the employee two months in advance, proposed an alternative position which was refused. The court established that other vacant positions did not match the plaintiff’s qualifications, and therefore the dismissal was legal.
The Supreme Court decided to leave previous court decisions unchanged, thus denying the plaintiff’s reinstatement claim.
Case No. 240/8787/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling a tax notification-decision that reduced the negative VAT value for LLC “Atlant-Oil 999”.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court noted that previous instance courts did not verify the circumstances of the company’s failure to provide primary documents during a tax inspection, prematurely recognized the claim as substantiated without clarifying document submission reasons. The court emphasized that non-submission of documents during inspection is equivalent to their absence, which is a significant circumstance not properly investigated by previous courts.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court instance decisions and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly examine all case circumstances.
Case No. 420/12149/23 dated 13/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging state executor’s resolutions on initiating enforcement proceedings for collecting an administrative fine from PERSON_1.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– No proper evidence of receiving the enforcement document within the legally established timeframe
– Territorial jurisdiction violated when initiating enforcement proceedings
– Previous instance courts improperly investigated case circumstances and evidence
– The court deviated from previous practice regarding location determinationExecution of Documents
3. Court Decision: Annul the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review.
Key Thesis: The mere indication of a place of residence not associated with the debtor cannot be a basis for accepting an executive document.
Case No. 200/2123/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the refusal of the Main Pension Fund Directorate in Donetsk Oblast to conduct pension indexation taking into account the coefficients of increase in the average wage indicator in 2023-2024.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1) The procedure for recalculating pensions does not comply with the Law “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, as it differently defines the indicator subject to increase.
2) When indexing a pension, the average wage indicator directly considered during pension assignment should be applied.
3) The right to indexation is not absolute and is limited by the term of court appeal.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from October 9, 2023, and from March 1, 2024, with corresponding coefficients.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of the appellate complaint of LLC “Nyva” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Raiz Company”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court incorrectly determined the final deadline for eliminating deficiencies in the appellate complaint as 13.09.2024, since taking into account weekends and procedural norms, the last day of the term is 16.09.2024. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty, but without excessive formalism, and considered the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding appeal terms.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint of LLC “Nyva”, cancel the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and refer the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Trade Agro” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Raiz Company” for the amount of 1,268,682.47 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of party interconnectedness (LLC “Trade Agro” and PJSC “Commercial Bank “Financial Initiative” are controlled by the same person).
2. The creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of the actual economic transaction, particularly a bank account statement confirming the movement of funds.
3. Available documents (payment orders, contracts) are more likely not to confirm the reality of fund transfer and the amount of claimed requirements.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, refuse to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Trade Agro”.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Agrofirma Mriya” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Raiz Company” for the amount of 398,206.37 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of party interconnectedness and potential interest.
2. The creditor did not provide irrefutable evidence of actual fund transfer, particularly a bank account statement with mandatory details.
3. Copies of submitted documents did not sufficiently confirm the fact of the economic transaction and the occurrence of debt.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions -Without changes, in which the claims of LLC “Agrofirma Mriya” were denied recognition.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Trading House “Moloko” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raize Company” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 101,425,412.81 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that LLC “Trading House “Moloko” and PJSC “Commercial Bank “Financial Initiative” are related parties controlled by the same beneficiary. Second, the copies of payment orders provided by the creditor are not proper evidence of payments and debt. Third, bank account statements that could confirm the reality of economic transactions were not submitted to the court at all.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Trading House “Moloko” for the amount of 101,425,412.81 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Private Lease Agricultural Enterprise “Pidrudianske” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raize Company” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 1,162,000 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of interconnectedness between enterprises with a common ultimate beneficiary.
2. The payment document provided by the creditor did not contain all mandatory details and could not be unequivocal proof of an economic transaction.
3. Absence of a bank account statement confirming the movement of funds cast doubt on the reality of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, refusing to recognize creditor claims.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Yasne” for the amount of 3,333,333.33 UAH in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Raize Company”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the evidence provided by LLC “Yasne” does not confirm the reality of the economic transaction and transfer of funds. First, it was discovered that LLC “Yasne” and the bank through which the operations were carried out are connected with a person controlling the debtor. Second, the copy of the payment order did not contain all mandatory details. Third, bank account statements that could confirm the transaction were not provided.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances refusing to recognize the creditor claims of LLC “Yasne”.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Subsidiary Enterprise “Ridnyi Krai” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raize Company” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 351,544.89 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of interconnectedness between the creditor and the debtor (both companies controlled by the same person).
2. The payment document provided by the creditor did not contain all mandatory details and could not be considered proper evidence.
3. Absence of funds movement in bank accounts and lack of unequivocal primary documents cast doubt on the reality of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, refusing to recognize creditor claims.
Case No. 914/28/23 daCase No. 619/1680/17 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the allocation of a land plot of 71.6083 hectares to PERSON_1 for running a farming enterprise.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The land plot was allocated to PERSON_1 before the law on land auctions came into effect
– At the time of receiving the plot, PERSON_1 was already a founder of a previously established farming enterprise
– The lease agreement challenged by the prosecutor is disputable, not void
– The prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, as the lease right is registered under another agreement
Court Decision: Reject the prosecutor’s claim to declare the lease agreement invalid and return the land plot to the state.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff independently determines the subject of the claim, and the court cannot go beyond its requirements.
Case No. 910/1221/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid a purchase and sale agreement for a share in the authorized capital of a limited liability company.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that a dispute regarding corporate rights is subject to consideration in an economic court, contrary to the previous position of the appellate court about considering it in civil proceedings. The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which clearly defines that cases involving transactions with corporate rights are considered by economic courts. The plaintiff claimed that the agreement is invalid due to non-payment of a share in the authorized capital, which corresponds to the jurisdiction of the economic court.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate economic court and send the case for a new review to the appellate instance.
Case No. 756/9295/22 dated 05/02/2025
The case concerns a labor dispute between an employee and the State Enterprise “Administration of Seaports of Ukraine” regarding the illegal suspension of the employment contract during martial law.
The main arguments of the court are that the employer did not prove the existence of legal grounds for suspending the employment contract with the employee, as the enterprise continued to function, and labor relations were selectively suspended for certain employees. The court also found that the employee was ready to perform their job duties but was illegally deprived of the opportunity to work.
Decision: The Supreme Court decided to cancel the previous court ruling regarding the calculation of average wages and send the case for a new review to the appellate court, as the previous wage calculation was made with a violation of the established procedure.
Case No. 686/18612/22 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the procedure for the father’s participation in upbringing and communication with a minor son.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court proceeded from the principle of equal parental rights in child-rearing and ensuring the child’s best interests.
2. Hostile relations between parents1. Disagreements and failure to reach an agreement regarding communication cannot be grounds for restricting the father’s right to contact with the child.
2. When establishing the meeting schedule, the court took into account the child’s age, health condition, rest schedule, and the father’s desire to participate in raising his son.
Court decision: Leave unchanged the appellate court’s resolution establishing a detailed schedule of meetings between the father and son in the mother’s presence.
Case No. 2-197/11 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Replacement of the claimant in enforcement proceedings under a credit agreement.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court considers that procedural legal succession must have a clear procedural purpose – a real possibility of executing the court decision. The court established that at the time of filing the application, the terms for presenting the executive document were not missed, and the enforcement proceedings were not actually completed. Moreover, during martial law, document execution terms are automatically extended.
Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “Financial Company “Invest-Credo”, canceled the appellate court’s resolution, and left in force the district court’s ruling on replacing the claimant.
Case No. 545/2631/16-ц dated 06/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Issuance of a duplicate executive sheet for recovery of 471,031.00 UAH in material damage.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The term for presenting the executive document for execution was interrupted by the executor’s return of the document on December 29, 2021
– The applicant applied for a duplicate in March 2023, which is within the three-year term
– The fact of losing the executive sheet is confirmed by the absence of the original with the claimant and the executive service
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Interestingly, the court strictly adhered to the legal position of interrupting the term for presenting an executive document when it is returned by the executor.
Case No. 175/9071/24 dated 06/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the resolution of the Director of the State Executive Service Department regarding the results of an enforcement proceeding legality check.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Department of SES Director Kyselov M.Ye. issued a resolution with violations of the instruction:
* Did not specify the resolution execution term
* Did not indicate the person responsible for control
* Prepared the resolution not in the Automated Enforcement Proceeding System
– The court found that these technical violations are grounds for partial satisfaction of PERSON_1’s complaint
3. Court decision: Leave previous instance court decisions unchanged, obliging the SES Department Director to bring the resolution in line with legislative requirements.
Case No. 640/9782/21 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions of the Kyiv Customs by the company “INTERPRO INVEST”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the customs office correctly calculated tax obligations. The panel of judges established that all procedural requirements in issuing the challenged decisions were observed, and the grounds for tax assessment are substantiated. The plaintiff’s argumentation did not contain convincing evidence of the customs office’s unlawful actions.
The Supreme Court left the company’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous instances’ decisions, effectively recognizing the Kyiv Customs’ lawfulness in calculating tax obligations.
Case No. 160/10848/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute
