Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 20/02/2025

Case No. 308/10158/22 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal by defense counsel against the verdict of the Lviv Appellate Court regarding criminal proceedings on charges against PERSON_7 for committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 332 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the appellate verdict is lawful and substantiated. The court found no grounds for satisfying the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, as previous judicial instances correctly established the circumstances of the case and provided an appropriate legal assessment of the defendant’s actions. The panel of judges believes that the evidence in the case was collected and examined in compliance with all procedural norms.

Court decision: The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Lviv Appellate Court unchanged, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.

Case No. 461/1706/20 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case of intentional murder, where the defense counsel challenges the qualification of the defendant’s actions as intentional murder, insisting on the presence of a state of strong emotional excitement.

Main arguments of the court:
1. Evidence in the case convincingly demonstrates the defendant’s intent to murder, as evidenced by the number, localization, and nature of strikes to vital organs.
2. Examinations did not confirm the defendant’s state of physiological affect, and his version of self-defense was not confirmed in the case materials.
3. The defendant’s behavior after the crime (concealing traces, destroying physical evidence) indicates awareness and controllability of his actions.

Court decision: Leave the district court’s verdict unchanged, the punishment of 11 years of imprisonment is lawful and substantiated.

Case No. 308/10158/22 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Organization of illegal transportation of persons across the state border of Ukraine during martial law.

Main arguments of the court: First, the court emphasized the increased social danger of the crime committed during martial law, when Ukraine needs protection of its sovereignty. Second, the appellate court did not consider it possible to release the person from serving punishment with probation, as the defendant did not admit guilt and did not repent. Third, the court took into account the severity of the crime and the need for real punishment to prevent similar offenses.

Court decision: Leave the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, sentencing PERSON_7 to imprisonment for 5 years without probation.

Case No. 585/4127/18 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings on charges of theft (Part 2 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that at the time of case consideration, the law establishing criminal liability for this act had lost its force. This means that the person can no longer be brought to criminal responsibility for the incriminated act. The court concluded that continuing criminal prosecution would violate the principles of criminal law.

Court decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, verdicts of previous instances were canceled, criminal proceedings were closed due to the loss of force of the law on criminal liability.

Case No. 922/1076/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring illegal the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the alienation of communal property, declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid, and claiming non-residential premises into communal ownership.

Main Arguments of the Court:

1. The prosecutor had legal grounds to appeal to the court, as the Kharkiv City Council, as a local self-government body, itself violates the interests of the territorial community when alienating communal property.

2. It was established that the disputed property was removed from the possession of the territorial community against its will, as a result of illegal actions by local self-government bodies during privatization.

3. The court took into account that the individual entrepreneur Makeieva O.A. did not make any improvements to the leased property, which makes its purchase under a preferential procedure impossible.

Court Decision: The case was sent for a new review to the appellate commercial court for additional investigation of the case circumstances, particularly regarding the statute of limitations.

Case No. 910/661/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: The company “Incomtech-Project” attempted to declare invalid a contract with AP “Antonov” due to alleged violations of public procurement legislation.

Main Arguments of the Court: First, AP “Antonov” is not a customer within the meaning of the Law “On Public Procurement” as it does not meet the established criteria. Second, there is no evidence in the case materials that the enterprise performs state orders with budget funds on a non-commercial basis. Third, the court clearly adhered to the principle that it cannot change the content of the law through subjective interpretation.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and denied satisfaction of the cassation appeal of the company “Incomtech-Project”.

Case No. 912/2104/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of an additional agreement on renewal of a land lease agreement between the football club “Zirka” and the Kropyvnytskyi City Council.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Despite the plaintiff’s claims of good faith, they had a debt of 73,736.65 UAH for rent from 01.06.2020 to 15.02.2022.
2. The mere fact of a court decision on debt collection indicates the tenant’s improper performance of obligations.
3. The principle of good faith involves not only formal but also conscientious fulfillment of contractual obligations.

Court Decision: Deny the claim to recognize the additional agreement as concluded and renew the land lease agreement.

Case No. 916/3679/23 dated 04/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:

Subject of Dispute: Termination of a land lease agreement and its return to the territorial community of the city of Odesa due to improper use and non-payment of rent.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Previous instance courts concluded that there are no grounds for terminating the lease agreement, as the defendant paid the rent arrears and did not violate the intended purpose of the land plot.
2. The courts considered that changing the type of land use within the same land category is not a change in its intended purpose.
3. The Appellate Court noted that”Systematic non-payment of rent” was interrupted by each appeal filed by the plaintiff.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review, as the courts did not provide proper legal assessment of all evidence and did not take into account the legal conclusions of previous Supreme Court decisions.

Case No. 444/2503/17 dated 12/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a private executor regarding the seizure of a serviceman’s salary.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Legislation establishes clear restrictions on salary seizure (no more than 20% per one document and 50% for multiple documents)
– Seizure of the entire salary is unlawful and violates the person’s constitutional right to work
– The bank and executor are obliged to verify the status of funds in the account before seizure
– A person receiving salary has the right to demand removal of illegal seizure

3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the complaint, obligate the private executor to remove the seizure from the applicant’s account.

Important: The court clearly adheres to the practice of protecting the debtor’s rights to receive salary.

Case No. 750/3031/20 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Apartment owner challenges purchase and sale agreements and attempts to recover the apartment, claiming the agreements were concluded without her will.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Forensic handwriting examination proved that the signature on the purchase and sale agreement dated November 29, 2019 does not belong to the apartment owner.
2. The agreement is not concluded, as the owner did not sign it and did not express her will to conclude it.
3. The court deviates from previous practice and indicates that an unconcluded transaction cannot be declared invalid but must be refuted during the resolution of the main dispute.

Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – denied recognition of the agreement as invalid, but satisfied the requirement to recover the apartment ownership.

Case No. 921/504/20 dated 14/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid the decision of the Ternopil City Council and the land lease agreement for a plot located in the coastal protection zone.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The land plot is located within the coastal protection zone, which imposes special restrictions on its use.
2. Transfer of the land plot for lease occurred without considering the restrictions established by law for lands in the coastal protection zone.
3. Evidence provided by the Cooperative (witness statements and expert opinion) are new evidence, not newly discovered circumstances, which cannot be grounds for reviewing the court decision.

Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal of the Service Cooperative “Wind” and leave the resolution of the Western Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.

Case No. 554/6326/22 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case on illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in previous court decisions that require additional review in the appellate court. Presumably, the defenders presented convincing arguments regarding incorrect interpretation or application of criminal law in previous instances. The court considers it necessary to return the case for additional review to ensure completeness and objectivity of judicial proceedings.

Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the resolution of the Poltava Appellate Court, and assign a new review in the appellate court.I apologize, but the text appears to be incomplete. Could you please provide the full text for translation? I am ready to translate the entire legal document or court decision analysis into English with precision and attention to legal terminology.Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Verdict of the First Instance Court Regarding Sentencing for a Person Who Committed a Robbery Theft of Funds at a Market during Martial Law.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court drew attention that the appellate court insufficiently motivated the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on exemption from serving punishment with probation. The court considers that the appellate court did not provide specific grounds for such a decision, other than those already taken into account when mitigating punishment under Article 69 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of detailed substantiation by the court of each decision, especially when it comes to exemption from serving punishment.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the decision of the Kyiv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review in the appellate instance court.

Subject of Dispute: Declaring the State Registration of Ownership Right to a Parking Space Illegal and Releasing the Land Plot.

Main Arguments of the Court:

1. The parking space is actually located not in the building, but on a land plot without clear boundaries, which belongs to the Odesa City Council.

2. PERSON_2 arbitrarily occupied the land plot for a parking lot without permission from the city council, and then illegally registered ownership of the parking space.

3. State registration of rights is not a basis for acquiring ownership, but only certifies an already acquired right, therefore the court checked the legality of the grounds for acquiring the right.

Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s claim – declare the registration of ownership of the parking space illegal and oblige PERSON_1 to release the land plot.

Subject of Dispute: Claim about Copyright Infringement and Recovery of Compensation for Using a Graphic Form of an Icon without the Author’s Permission.

Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of her authorship of a specific graphic work
– The copyright registration certificate for a collection is not an indisputable proof of authorship of a separate element
– The expert opinion ordered by the plaintiff herself cannot be considered indisputable evidence
– The burden of proving copyright infringement lies with the plaintiff

Court Decision: Reject the claim and recover court costs in favor of the defendant.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of copyright infringement, therefore cannot claim compensation.

Subject of Dispute – Megabank’s Recovery of 200,000 Hryvnias from the Private Enterprise “Koloma”.

The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous judicial instances correctly assessed the evidence and followed procedural norms. The panel of judges established that there are no grounds for canceling previous court decisions, as they are based on proper and admissible evidence. The bank’s argumentation in the cassation appeal did not contain convincing legal grounds for reviewing the case.

The Supreme Court left Megabank’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of previous judicial instances.

Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Inaction of a State Executor in a Case on Establishing the Procedure for a Father’s Visitation with a Child.

Main Arguments of the Court:
– The state executor did not take all necessary actions for forced execution of the court decision on establishingEstablishing the Procedure for Father’s Visitation with the Child.
– The materials of the executive proceedings lack information about proper verification of court decision execution.
– The state executor’s acts were not entered into the Automated System of Executive Proceedings, which violates the legislation.

3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the district court’s ruling on recognizing the state executor’s inaction as unlawful.

Case No. 521/16579/18 from 12/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of decisions of the general meeting of the OSBB “Romashka 2007” and resolving issues regarding the use of the adjacent territory.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court established that not all challenged decisions violate the plaintiff’s rights
– Partial violations of the meeting procedure are not grounds for invalidating all decisions
– It is necessary to maintain a balance of interests of all co-owners of the multi-apartment building
– Some decisions (on including persons in the audit commission, on independent adjustment of contributions) were declared invalid as contradicting legislation

3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, cancel a number of OSBB decisions, and refer the case for a new review in the appellate court.

Case No. 910/14481/23 from 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of fuel supply contract clauses regarding VAT inclusion and recovery of unjustly paid funds.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. According to Resolution No. 178 and subparagraph “g” of subparagraph 195.1.2 of paragraph 195.1 of Article 195 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, operations for supplying goods to ensure transport of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are subject to VAT at a zero rate.
2. Inclusion of VAT at 7% and 20% (instead of 0%) in contract prices contradicts current legislation, as VAT cannot be set by contract parties.
3. Funds paid as VAT are unjustly acquired and subject to return based on Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on invalidating contract clauses and recovering 262,212,654.73 UAH of unjustly paid funds, 14,864,133.51 UAH of inflation losses, and 5,471,411.34 UAH of three percent per annum from the defendant.

Case No. 534/1577/18 from 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the appellate court’s verdict convicting PERSON_7 for drug trafficking.

Main Arguments of the Court:

1. The appellate court violated the principle of direct evidence examination by referring to evidence not directly examined by it.

2. The appellate court groundlessly recognized the powers of investigator PERSON_9, as the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations cannot replace a procedural decision on investigator appointment.

3. The appellate court did not verify or evaluate the defense’s arguments regarding possible crime provocation and evidence inadmissibility.

Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s verdict and assign a new review in the appellate court with a preventive measure of detention.

Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding assessment of investigator powers and evidence examination in appellate proceedings.

Case No. 921/379/23 from 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the ruling of the Commercial Court of Ternopil Region on closing proceedings in a case of an individual’s insolvency due to incomplete disclosure of corporate rights information.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the procedure for restoring the term for appellate appeal and concluded that1. The appellate court did not provide proper grounds for recognizing the reasons for missing the deadline as valid.
2. The appellate court committed procedural violations, in particular, by calculating the terms of appeal differently – from the date of receiving the ruling in the electronic cabinet and from the date of receiving it by mail.
3. The court indicated that unjustified renewal of the appeal term is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Court decision: Rescind the resolution and ruling of the appellate commercial court and refer the case to the appellate court from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.

Case No. 910/5029/22 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the Commercial Cassation Court during the consideration of the cassation appeal.

Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the provided evidence and concluded that the claimed legal expenses are justified and proportionate. The court took into account the scope of services provided, the complexity of the case, the lawyer’s time spent, and that the preparation of a response to the cassation appeal indeed required 3 hours of work. Moreover, the court emphasized that the amount of expenses corresponds to the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and fairness.

Court decision: Recover from Individual Entrepreneur Sych Volodymyr Volodymyrovych in favor of LLC “TRC Lavyna” 10,000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance.

Case No. 918/822/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Reimbursement of court expenses in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Tradeks”.

Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the submitted documents regarding legal assistance expenses of Agricultural LLC “Dubenska Agrarna Kompaniya” and PERSON_1.
2. It was established that the claimed expenses of 100,000 UAH are unjustified and do not meet the criteria of reality and reasonableness.
3. The panel of judges considers it appropriate to reduce legal assistance expenses to 25,000 UAH for each applicant.

Court decision: Partial satisfaction of applications – recovery from PERSON_2 in favor of Agricultural LLC “Dubenska Agrarna Kompaniya” and PERSON_1 of 25,000 UAH of court expenses and minor postal expenses.

Case No. 870/15/24 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cancellation of the arbitration court decision, which recovered 592,849.86 UAH of debt from LLC “Ukraine” in favor of LLC “Poletechnika”.

Main arguments of the court:

1. The arbitration agreement is valid, as the parties voluntarily agreed to the arbitration clause in the contract, which was signed by an authorized person of LLC “Poletechnika”.

2. The appointment of the chairman of the arbitration court as an arbitrator does not violate the legislation and regulations of the arbitration court.

3. The fact of a previous marriage between the chairman of the arbitration court and the deputy chairman who considered recusal applications cannot be grounds for doubting the impartiality of the judges, as they have not been married for 14 years.

Court decision: Reject the appellate appeal of LLC “Ukraine” and leave the arbitration court decision unchanged.

Case No. 585/3727/19 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding a person who committed two episodes of illegal seizure of vehicles.

Main arguments of the court: The court thoroughly analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the imposed punishment of 6 years of imprisonment is fair. The court took into account the severity of the crime, the personality of the convicted person, in particular, that he was previously convicted and committed a new crime during the probation period. The court did not find grounds for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on exemption from serving the sentence with probation, since the correctionalPunishment of the convicted person is possible only under conditions of isolation from society.

Court Decision: Leave the sentence unchanged, the defense counsel’s cassation complaint – without satisfaction.

Case No. 638/18321/19 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of termination of mortgage under a credit agreement concluded in 2007 between the bank and the borrower.

Main Arguments of the Court:

1. The primary obligation under the credit agreement was terminated due to full execution of the court decision on debt collection, which was adopted in 2013 and fully performed by the borrower in 2019.

2. The bank independently determined the debt in hryvnia and accepted its performance in the national currency, which indicates the termination of the obligation.

3. The private executor’s resolution dated November 17, 2020 confirms the full execution of the court decision and termination of the primary obligation.

Court Decision: Leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on recognizing the mortgage terminated and reject the bank’s cassation complaint.

Case No. 760/21007/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim to oblige to stop abuse of right and initiate out-of-court collection on the mortgage subject.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The mortgagee has the right to independently determine the procedure for satisfying its requirements in case of non-performance of the primary obligation by the debtor.
2. The contract terms provide the mortgagee’s right to enforce collection on the mortgage subject in various ways.
3. The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the respondent is abusing their rights or artificially delaying the collection procedure.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the previous court decisions and refused to satisfy the cassation complaint.

Case No. 640/37410/21 dated 13/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of LLC “ACE” right to perform construction works for capital repair of a non-residential building.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The State Architectural and Construction Inspection (SACI) may apply to the court to terminate the right to construction works in case of obvious inaccuracy of data in the notification about the start of works.
– Previous instance courts did not verify all circumstances of the case, in particular discrepancies in technical documentation and building area.
– The issue of possible unauthorized construction and compliance of the object’s technical characteristics was not properly investigated.

3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for detailed examination of all circumstances.

Key feature of the decision – detailed explanations regarding the procedure of SACI actions when identifying potential violations in construction documentation.

Case No. 420/13080/22 dated 14/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of a tax notification-decision by which LLC “Communications and Engineering Networks” increased the amount of VAT monetary obligation by 1,170,515 hryvnias.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court revealed significant procedural violations in the actions of previous instance courts, which did not conduct a full and comprehensive investigation of the submitted documents.
2. The courts did not clarify which primary documents were provided to the tax authority and did not assess their sufficiency to confirm economic transactions.
3. The circumstances regarding the receipt and completeness of documents provided during the tax audit were not investigated.

Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for full and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.

Case No. 160/11240/24 dated 1Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English: