Case No. 990/8/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine on Imposing Sanctions against an Individual and a Company.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The President of Ukraine acted within his constitutional powers, exercising the state’s right to protect national interests and security.
2. Sanctions were imposed based on proposals from the Security Service of Ukraine and the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
3. Legislation does not require detailed substantiation of grounds for imposing sanctions and provides broad discretionary powers to authorities.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to declare the Presidential Decree unlawful and invalid.
Case No. 240/8208/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging orders on disciplinary action and dismissal of a police officer in connection with suspicion of a corruption offense.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Disciplinary and criminal liability are different types of liability that are independent of each other.
2. An official investigation established that the police officer’s actions undermine the authority of the police and violate the Police Officer’s Oath.
3. The legislator imposes heightened requirements on police officers due to the special status of service and the need to serve society.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the first instance court’s decision on the lawfulness of the police officer’s dismissal.
Case No. 9901/437/21 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine on Applying Personal Sanctions to PERSON_1.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that the plaintiff filed a request to consider the case in his absence, as he was forcibly expelled from Ukraine. Second, the court noted that the plaintiff did not have an electronic cabinet and did not provide additional communication methods. Third, the court believed that despite the plaintiff’s non-appearance, the case should be considered based on available materials.
Court Decision: The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court and referred the case for reconsideration.
It is important to emphasize that the court essentially defended the procedural rights of a person outside Ukraine and did not allow a formal approach to case consideration.
Case No. 903/811/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance in the cassation instance.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court evaluates the amount of lawyer’s expenses by the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality.
– The Supreme Court found that the total amount of expenses (45,000 UAH) was excessive relative to the volume of work performed.
– When determining the amount of expenses, the complexity of the case, volume of services provided, and time spent by the lawyer were taken into account.
Court Decision: Recover from LLC “Forsazhgazoil-Trade” in favor of LLC “Mustang Trans” 20,000 UAH of court expenses for legal assistance.
Additionally: The court strictly adheres to the principles of fairness and proportionality when determining court expenses.
Case No. 910/3935/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 9,130,816.85 UAH for shared participation in the infrastructure development of Kyiv city from two defendants – Private Enterprise “Transsport” and Private Enterprise “Creator-Bud”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The construction customer is Private Enterprise “Transsport”, which has ownership rights to theLand Plot
– The enterprise “Kreator-Bud” performed only certain customer functions but did not have a direct obligation to pay the share contribution
– The agreement between the enterprises does not contain a clear provision on the obligation of “Kreator-Bud” to pay the share participation
– The local self-government body cannot demand payment from a person who is not the construction customer
3. Court Decision: Refuse to collect the share contribution from the enterprise “Kreator-Bud”, leaving the payment obligation on the enterprise “Transport”.
Case No. 910/1967/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: “Astonish Ukraine” LLC attempted to exclude the head of OSBB “Oasis 4” from the register due to the expiration of his powers.
Main Court Arguments: The court thoroughly analyzed the procedural norms regarding the distribution of court expenses, particularly legal assistance costs. It established that the OSBB provided all necessary evidence of incurred expenses, namely the contract with the law association, details of services provided and their cost. The company did not object to the amount of expenses, therefore the court concluded the reasonableness of OSBB’s claims.
Court Decision: Collect from “Astonish Ukraine” LLC in favor of OSBB “Oasis 4” 8,000 hryvnias of court expenses for legal assistance.
Case No. 910/11845/23 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for electricity imbalances from NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of the Energy Company of Ukraine.
Main Court Arguments:
1. NEC “Ukrenergo” did not timely fulfill its obligations to pay for electricity to settle imbalances within the contract-stipulated period.
2. Lack of funds in the special account does not exempt the respondent from liability for monetary obligation delay.
3. The court considered the consistent judicial practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of electricity market legislation.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, collect from NEC “Ukrenergo” 98,438,831.03 hryvnias of principal debt, 8,953,239.53 hryvnias of inflation losses, and 5,989,763.82 hryvnias of 3% per annum.
Case No. 466/513/15-k dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Official abuse of power by police officers and torture of a suspect during pre-trial investigation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The appellate court carefully verified the arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence collected under the old Criminal Procedure Code and established that there are no grounds for declaring these evidence invalid.
2. The criminal case was re-initiated on January 4, 2012, based on the victim’s mother’s statement about a crime against her son.
3. Evidence collected both under the old and new Criminal Procedure Code was recognized by the court as acceptable and confirming the defendants’ guilt.
Court Decision: Leave the resolution of the Lviv Appellate Court unchanged and the convict’s cassation complaint without satisfaction.
Case No. 907/1096/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Pension Fund’s monetary claims against the enterprise “Solotvynskyi Solerrudnyk” in the bankruptcy case, particularly regarding financial sanctions and penalties on debt for compensation of preferential pension expenses.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court noted that the appellate instance did not establish the clear legal nature of monetary claims for the amount of 22,019.06 hryvnias.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that before applying the statute of limitations, it is necessary to clarify whether the creditor’s right was actually violated.
3. The court pointed to the need for a detailed analysis of the grounds for calculating financial sanctions and penalties.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and refer the case for a new review to establish the legalTranslation of the Legal Text:
Types of Monetary Claims.
Case No. 334/1734/19 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Plaintiffs challenge the apartment purchase and sale agreement, claiming that their mother’s signature on the contract is forged.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide irrefutable evidence of signature forgery, despite the existence of expert conclusions in the criminal case. Second, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs themselves did not file a motion for a forensic handwriting examination. Third, the court highlighted the principle of adversarial proceedings, according to which each process participant must prove the circumstances they refer to.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the previous decisions of lower courts to refuse to declare the purchase and sale agreement invalid.
Case No. 760/8015/20 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid the purchase and sale agreement of an apartment that was the subject of a mortgage due to the mortgagee’s violation of the procedure for foreclosure on real estate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The mortgagee (LLC “Megainvest Service”) did not comply with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” regarding proper notification of the mortgagor about the intention to foreclose on the mortgage subject.
2. The court established that the plaintiff properly fulfilled the conditions of the credit and mortgage agreements, and therefore, the mortgagee had no grounds for out-of-court seizure of real estate.
3. The absence of proper notification makes it impossible to apply the out-of-court method of satisfying the mortgagee’s claims.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on declaring the apartment purchase and sale agreement invalid.
Case No. 677/1181/22 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order of dismissal of the director of State Enterprise “Pivnichna Pushcha” and demanding reinstatement in the position.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The contract provides additional grounds for dismissing the manager, particularly due to non-fulfillment of the enterprise’s financial obligations
– An increase in the enterprise’s accounts payable during the plaintiff’s tenure was established
– Debt to the budget increased from 440,014 UAH to 639,791 UAH
– Enforcement proceedings and debts were not fully repaid
3. Court Decision: To keep the dismissal order in force, but to modify the motivational part regarding reinstatement in the position, as the claim was filed against an improper defendant.
: The court deviated from previous practice in assessing the grounds for dismissal of a manager under the contract.
Case No. 752/24044/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the termination of the investment agreement and the right to use the premises of the recreation house “Koncha-Zaspa” illegal.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. : The court indicated that claims to declare the termination of the investment agreement illegal are not an appropriate method of protecting rights.
2. After the completion of the investment project, the parties concluded a separate agreement on the use of premises, which became the basis for using the house.
3. The unilateral transaction of the defendant to terminate the agreement does not automatically terminate legal relations, as it requires a judicial assessment of the grounds and circumstances of such termination.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceling previous court decisions regarding declaring the contract termination illegal and referring the case for a new review to more thoroughly examine the circumstances of premises use.
Court decision: The Supreme Court denied the satisfaction of the accused’s motion to change the jurisdiction of the criminal case.
Case No. 910/19944/20 dated 12/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under an agency agreement for electronic ticket distribution services in the ASOP system.
Main arguments of the court:
1. KP “GIOС” signed the act for July 2020 without objections, therefore its subsequent objections to the acts for August-October are inconsistent.
2. The contract and the ASOP Functioning Procedure provide that KP “GIOС” as an operator has access to operation registries and can verify the volume of services provided.
3. KP “GIOС” did not provide a motivated refusal to sign the acts within the term specified in the contract.
4. Forensic examination confirmed the debt in the amount of 1,125,086.15 UAH.
Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal of KP “GIOС” unsatisfied, to recover the debt in favor of LLC “Hertz”.
Case No. 920/1176/21 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for exceeding the ordered natural gas transportation capacity and related penalty sanctions.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the grounds for reducing the penalty amount provided by the respondent are not sufficiently substantiated.
2. The appellate court established that the amount of accrued penalty is only 6.4% of the claimed debt amount, which is not excessive.
3. The respondent did not provide convincing evidence of its difficult financial situation, despite references to complex economic circumstances.
Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate commercial court unchanged, that is, to recover the full amount of accrued penalty from the respondent.
Case No. 705/4295/23 dated 14/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of the land lease agreement as extended and invalidation of a new lease agreement with another lessee.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff (LLC “Prometheus”) did not comply with the legally established procedure for renewing the land lease agreement, in particular did not send a notification letter with a draft supplementary agreement to the landlord one month before the contract expiration.
2. The landlord (PERSON_1) on January 9, 2023, applied to the registrar to terminate the previous lease agreement, and on January 30, 2023, concluded a new lease agreement with LLC “Yurinvest Agro”.
3. Contract terms providing for automatic extension cannot contradict the imperative norms of the Law “On Land Lease”, which define a clear procedure for contract renewal.
Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Prometheus” unsatisfied, the appellate court resolution unchanged.
Case No. 295/6687/24 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: A person attempted to challenge the seizure of immovable property imposed in 2007 for debts to PrivatBank.
Main arguments of the court: First, the plaintiff was directly the debtor in the enforcement proceeding, therefore cannot challenge the property seizure in general claim proceedings. Second, the legislation provides a special procedure for challenging the actions of a state executor through Section VII of the Civil Procedure Code. Third, the court referred to the previous legal conclusion of the SupremeSupreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the appellant’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the previous court instances’ decision to refuse to open proceedings.
Case No. 755/6559/23 dated 17/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Division of joint marital property and recovery of compensation for a real estate share sold after divorce.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Land plot and apartment were purchased during marriage with joint funds
– Presumption of joint marital property applies
– Plaintiff provided notarized consent for property sale
– Claim was filed within the three-year statute of limitations
– Respondent did not provide evidence that the property was purchased with personal funds
3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decisions and recover 846,382.75 UAH in compensation for the sold property share in favor of the plaintiff.
Important: The court strictly adhered to the principle of equal spousal shares in joint property.
Case No. 495/1240/21 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor attempted to declare the transfer of a land plot to private ownership illegal and return it to communal ownership.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court believes that the prosecutor chose an inappropriate method of protecting the right – instead of vindication (property recovery), he requested declaring decisions illegal and canceling them.
2. According to the Supreme Court’s judicial practice, to return a land plot, a vindication claim must be filed against the person currently owning the plot.
3. Declaring local self-government body decisions illegal is not an effective method of protecting property rights.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 916/33/24 dated 13/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Municipal Enterprise “Bilhorod-Dnistrovskvodokanal” demanded recovery of 2,800,000 UAH from Individual Entrepreneur Kasperovych for allegedly low-quality goods (specialized machine for cleaning sewage collectors).
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of poor product quality
– Parties signed acceptance certificate without remarks
– Enterprise did not follow the contract-prescribed procedure for filing quality claims
– Evidence from criminal proceedings does not confirm machine’s poor quality
3. Court Decision: Reject the claim and leave previous court decisions unchanged.
The court decision demonstrates a clear position regarding the need to comply with contractual discipline and procedural requirements when filing claims.
Case No. 910/10742/21 dated 29/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Determining the order and amount of creditor claims for LLC “FC “Paradise Finance” in a natural person’s insolvency case.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The appellate court improperly changed creditor claim priority by “correcting a typo”, which effectively alters the essence of the court decision
– Changing claim priority from out-of-turn to second-tier occurred without proper legal grounds and violates judicial fairness principles
– Correcting typos cannot affect the content of a court decision and should only address technical errors
3. Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for new consideration.
Note: The Supreme Court clearly indicated the inadmissibility of changing
