Case No. 924/232/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of legal assistance expenses within cassation proceedings in a bankruptcy case.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the legal assistance agreement and established that the parties provided two fee calculation mechanisms – hourly payment and fixed amount.
2. Despite the claimed amount of 20,000 UAH, the court found it excessive and unfair relative to the volume of services provided.
3. The panel of judges considered the case complexity, volume of services rendered and concluded on the necessity of partial satisfaction of claims.
Court Decision: To recover from Municipal Enterprise “Agrofirma “Proskuriv” in favor of PJSC “Proskuriv” 8,000 UAH of professional legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 916/3735/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring Private Enterprise “Rentservice-MSL” bankrupt based on the application of LLC “Club “Yacht-Marine”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. During martial law, there is a temporary prohibition on forced collection of overdue creditor debt from enterprises purchased during privatization.
2. The creditor has no right to demand debt repayment from the enterprise purchaser through court proceedings or bankruptcy procedure.
3. Special legislative restrictions take priority over general grounds for initiating bankruptcy proceedings.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution and uphold the first instance court ruling refusing to open bankruptcy proceedings.
Case No. 924/750/20 dated 05/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the company in favor of the former participant of 1,915,490.42 UAH as the value of her share upon leaving the company.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 was a participant of LLC “ZhEO” with a 10.4199% share of the authorized capital
– Company statute provides participant’s right to leave the company and receive share value
– Evidence of authorized capital formation confirms full payment of contributions by participants
– The company did not provide alternative evidence of property value and did not pay the participant’s due share
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the claim and recover from LLC “ZhEO” in favor of PERSON_1 1,915,490.42 UAH as property share value.
Case No. 910/18250/16 (910/18292/23) dated 12/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of PJSC “Indbud” obligations to LLC “HC “Energomontazhventilation” under a contract agreement.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Plaintiff (LLC “Ufiteks”) chose an inappropriate method of protecting their creditor rights in a bankruptcy case
– Court indicated a special procedure exists for challenging another creditor’s claims within bankruptcy proceedings
– Appellate court prematurely recognized obligations partially terminated without proper verification of case circumstances
3. Court Decision: Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court resolution and referred the case for new consideration.
Case No. 910/715/24 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery from PJSC “Ukrnafta” in favor of LLC “United Energy” of 9,669,209.26 UAH as unjustly acquired funds under a natural gas purchase-sale agreement.
Main Court Arguments:
1) Parties fully executed their obligations under the gas purchase-sale agreement, however LLC “United Energy” paid1. The case involved a larger amount than was stipulated by the agreement. 2) PJSC “Ukrnafta” partially acknowledged the overpayment, returning 3,223,069.76 UAH. 3) The absence of additional gas supply agreements for other periods or in larger volumes indicates the groundlessness of withholding funds.
Court decision: To uphold the decision of previous instances to recover from PJSC “Ukrnafta” in favor of LLC “United Energy” 9,669,209.26 UAH as unjustly acquired funds on the basis of Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 925/889/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of additional agreements and recovery of funds from LLC “Cherkasyenerhozbut” in favor of Mykhailivka Village Council.
The court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the additional agreements between the parties have signs of illegality. Key arguments were evidence of violation of previous contract terms and inconsistency of financial calculations with current legislation. The court also took into account the position of the prosecutor’s office, which pointed to potential financial abuses by LLC “Cherkasyenerhozbut”.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Cherkasyenerhozbut” unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous instances on invalidating the additional agreements and recovering funds.
Case No. 904/5865/20 (904/6495/23) dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of fines and penalties imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on LLC “Bakery No. 10” after its bankruptcy declaration.
Main arguments of the court: First, from the moment of declaring the debtor bankrupt, it is in a special legal regime where any economic sanctions are suspended. Second, the Antimonopoly Committee does not have advantages among other creditors and must act within the bankruptcy procedure. Third, the norms of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code take precedence over other legislative acts in this situation.
Court decision: The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee and left previous court decisions unchanged, confirming the prohibition of accruing fines and penalties after the enterprise’s bankruptcy.
Case No. 910/6577/24 dated 13/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery from NEC “Ukrenergo” of 3% per annum and inflation losses for late payment of electricity for balancing settlements.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Article 75 of the Law “On Electricity Market” does not prohibit the respondent from making settlements from other accounts
– Non-receipt of funds from other market participants is not a reason for delaying payments
– Invoices were properly sent through the market management system
– The respondent had the ability and obligation to pay the debt on time
3. Court decision: To uphold previous court decisions and deny the cassation appeal of NEC “Ukrenergo”.
Case No. 910/18250/16 (910/18292/23) dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Termination of obligations between Private Joint Stock Company “Indbud” and Limited Liability Company “Holding Company “Energomontazhventyliatsia” within the bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the additional resolution of the appellate court on the distribution of court costs is derivative of the main decision in the case. Since the resolution of the appellate court dated 17.10.2024 was canceled with re-In the case of sending the case for a new review, the additional resolution dated 14.11.2024 shall also be cancelled. The court was guided by the principle that an additional court decision loses its validity if the main decision is cancelled.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, cancelled the additional resolution of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new review to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/3435/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery from Joint Stock Company “Ukrtransgaz” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Gazbudengineering” of a monetary amount of 1,713,318.46 UAH.
The court carefully analyzed the procedural grounds of the cassation appeal and concluded that there are no legal grounds for its satisfaction. The panel of judges established that the previous court decisions of local and appellate commercial courts are lawful and well-founded. The Supreme Court drew attention to the observance of all procedural norms in the case consideration and the absence of grounds for cancellation or modification of court decisions.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 918/132/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Claiming a land plot of 2.8438 hectares from the possession of an individual in favor of the Zdolbuniv City Territorial Community.
Main arguments of the court:
1. IMPORTANT: The court established that the person who received the land plot as a member of a farming enterprise is not its founder and did not transfer the land plot to the enterprise, therefore, did not have the right to free acquisition of the plot.
2. Since the land plot owner does not carry out farming activities on it and leased it out, the dispute is subject to consideration under civil proceedings, not commercial.
3. The proper defendant in the case of land plot claiming is the person with registered ownership rights to this plot.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and close the proceedings, explaining to the prosecutor the need to apply to a civil jurisdiction court.
Case No. 904/5268/23 dated 18/02/2025
The case concerns debt recovery for heat supply from a municipal enterprise in favor of a heat and power plant.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions are lawful. The main arguments were indisputable evidence of debt, absence of objections from the defendant regarding the debt amount, and compliance with all procedural norms during the case consideration in previous instances.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of previous court instances on debt recovery in full.
Case No. 906/1514/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance in the Supreme Court.
Main arguments of the court: The court carefully analyzed the case circumstances, in particular, the legal assistance agreement and the scope of work performed by the lawyer. The Supreme Court was guided by the criteria of reality and reasonableness of lawyer expenses, considering the case complexity and the volume of legal work performed. The court recognized that the lawyer indeed conducted significant analytical work, studying and analyzing about twenty previous Supreme Court resolutions.
Court decision: The court partially satisfPartially satisfied the claim and recovered from the defendant UAH 110,000 in court expenses for professional legal assistance instead of the initially claimed UAH 211,500.
Case No. 910/15231/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – conflict between LLC “United Energy” and NPC “Ukrenergo” regarding recognition of actions and obligations as unlawful in the electricity sector.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: first, procedural inaccuracies were identified in previous court decisions that did not allow a comprehensive assessment of the parties’ actions. Second, the panel of judges found it necessary to further study the circumstances of the case, particularly regarding financial calculations and contractual obligations between the dispute participants. Third, the court considered it necessary to detail the legal assessment of the actions of NPC “Ukrenergo” and LLC “United Energy”.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/5348/23 dated 11/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recognition of garden society meeting decisions as invalid regarding the exclusion of PERSON_1 from society membership due to non-payment of membership fees.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence of court expenses for legal assistance
– Established that not all claimed expenses are justified and necessary
– Considered the complexity of the case, consistency of legal position, and the volume of work performed by the lawyer
– Guided by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality of court expenses
3. Court decision: Partially satisfied PERSON_1’s claim and recovered from the garden society UAH 3,000 in court expenses for legal assistance instead of the claimed UAH 10,000.
Additional features: The court strictly adhered to procedural norms and demonstrated a balanced approach to the distribution of court expenses.
Case No. 916/4391/24 dated 17/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: “Omega Terminal S.A.” challenges the property lease agreement, claiming it was signed by an unauthorized person.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Interim measures cannot be identical to resolving the dispute on the merits
– There is a presumption of the contract’s legitimacy
– Prohibiting contract execution would effectively interfere with the defendant’s economic activity
– The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the urgent need for interim measures
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on interim measures and upheld the first instance court’s decision to refuse interim measures.
Key thesis: The court emphasized that temporary measures cannot completely block the defendant’s economic activity without indisputable evidence.
Case No. 911/2548/20 (911/895/24) dated 17/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of penalties and fines imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on LLC “Alternative Energy Resources” for anti-competitive concerted actions, after recognizing the company as bankrupt.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that after initiating bankruptcy proceedings, the accrual of any economic sanctions is terminated, regardless of their type. The court emphasized that the norms of the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine take precedence over other laws, and therefore, fines and penalties cannot be recovered from a bankrupt. The Antimonopoly Committee does not have advantages among other creditors and must act within the bankruptcy procedure.Court Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee and left the previous court decisions unchanged regarding the refusal to collect a fine and penalty.
Case No. 910/2990/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery from JSC “Energoatom” in favor of Corporation “TSM Group” of a monetary amount of 4,730,454.54 UAH.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the cassation appeal of JSC “Energoatom” does not contain convincing arguments for canceling the appellate court decision. The panel of judges took into account all previous court decisions in the case and concluded about the validity of the requirements of Corporation “TSM Group”. In particular, the court drew attention to the documentary confirmation of the financial obligations of the defendant and the absence of significant objections from JSC “Energoatom”.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of previous instances on recovery from JSC “Energoatom” in favor of Corporation “TSM Group” of the claimed amount and partially satisfied the motion for court expenses.
Case No. 911/899/22 (911/1842/23) dated 17/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance from LLC “Sofiya bud group” in favor of PERSON_1 in the amount of 44,000 hryvnias.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court established that PERSON_1 provided all necessary evidence of expenses incurred, including a legal assistance agreement, work completion certificates, and receipts. Second, the court recognized that the claimed expenses are proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of legal services provided. Third, the court was guided by the principles of economic litigation on reimbursement of court expenses to the party in whose favor the court decision was made.
Court decision: The court fully satisfied the application of PERSON_1 and recovered 44,000 hryvnias of court expenses for professional legal assistance from LLC “Sofiya bud group”.
Case No. 914/2693/23(914/3476/23) dated 13/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of a unilateral transaction – a statement of offsetting counter-homogeneous claims.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– In the previous case No. 638/16545/20, the fact of the due date for PERSON_2’s obligation to repay the loan was already established
– The additional agreement dated 26.12.2019 on extending the loan repayment period until 31.12.2032 was not examined in the previous case
– PERSON_2’s attempts to challenge the previously made court decision by filing a new lawsuit violate the principle of res judicata (finality of a court decision)
– The offsetting of counter claims was carried out legally, as the performance period of obligations had arrived
3. Court decision: The appellate court ruling was canceled and the first instance court decision refusing the claim was upheld.
Case No. 320/9420/21 dated 14/02/2025
The case concerns a dispute about recognizing the actions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine as unlawful regarding the refusal to issue a certificate of monetary support for pension recalculation.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: first, the court decision of the first instance was not properly served to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which made timely appeal impossible; second, the fact of publishing the decision in the Unified Register of Court Decisions does not cancel the court’s obligation to send a copy of the decision to the case participant; third, the absence of evidence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs receiving the court decision is grounds for doubt in theReasonableness of Refusal to Restore the Deadline for Appeal.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the ruling of the appellate court and send the case for a new review to continue resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 906/1514/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of additional expenses incurred by the freight forwarder due to the client’s violation of loading and unloading operation timelines during cargo transportation.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Defendant (LLC “Signet-Center”) violated the loading and unloading operation timelines established by additional agreements, as a result of which the freight forwarder (LLC “TEP “Horizont”) incurred additional expenses.
2. The freight forwarding agreement provides for the client’s obligation to compensate the freight forwarder for additional expenses related to loading/unloading timeline violations.
3. The Plaintiff provided appropriate evidence of incurred additional expenses, including railway waybills, service provision acts, invoices, etc.
4. The Defendant did not prove the absence of their fault in violating obligations and did not provide evidence of payment of additional expenses.
Court Decision: Uphold the ruling of the appellate commercial court on full satisfaction of the claim by LLC “TEP “Horizont” to recover additional expenses from LLC “Signet-Center” in the amount of 1,868,700.24 UAH.
Case No. 916/2079/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the OSBB “Fontan-16” application for adopting an additional decision in the case regarding invalidation of certain decisions.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the OSBB application and concluded that it should be partially satisfied. The court took into account the procedural norms of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine and the circumstances of the previous case review. The panel of judges considered it necessary to recover court expenses for professional legal assistance in favor of the OSBB in the amount of 3,000 hryvnias from PERSON_1.
Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the OSBB “Fontan-16” application, recovering 3,000 UAH of court expenses from PERSON_1 and refusing to satisfy other application requirements.
Case No. 906/1052/22 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision regarding ownership of a civil protection protective structure.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that previous court decisions were unfounded and subject to cancellation. The court concluded to reject the prosecutor’s claim and the need to recover court expenses in favor of the defendant. It was fundamentally important to observe procedural norms and the principle of compensating court expenses to the party in whose favor the court decision was made.
Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the application of JSC “Ukrtelekom” and recovered 30,764 hryvnias 40 kopiykas of court expenses from the State Property Fund of Ukraine in favor of the defendant.
Case No. 921/166/24 dated 18/02/2025
The case concerns the prosecutor’s claim against the Pidvolochysk Village Council for environmental damage compensation amounting to 4,714,594.95 UAH.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the violation of environmental legislation by the village council is indisputable. The court established that the defendant’s activities led to significant environmental damages requiring full compensation. The prosecutor’s argumentation was supported by convincing evidence of the village council’s failure to fulfill establishedSupreme Court Analysis of Legal Cases
Case No. 916/1301/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision to impose a fine on LLC “Avgora” for failure to submit information upon request.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the AMC decision was sent by mail to the company but was not delivered due to expiration of storage period.
2. Information about the decision was published in the “Government Courier” newspaper, which constitutes official notification to the company.
3. Since the company learned about the decision on 19.08.2023 and appealed later, the two-month statutory period for appeal was missed.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court closed cassation proceedings and left previous court decisions unchanged, effectively supporting the position that the company missed the deadline for appealing the AMC decision.
Case No. 910/6519/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty sanctions amounting to 1,814,534.05 UAH between the Gas Transportation System Operator Company and Teploenergocomplex Company.
The court carefully analyzed case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The panel of judges identified procedural violations in previous instances that prevent an objective decision on the merits of the dispute. The Supreme Court considers it necessary to return the case for a new hearing to more thoroughly examine all circumstances and provide process participants an opportunity to fully prove their positions.
The court decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the Commercial Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 918/323/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under natural gas supply agreement and reduction of penalty sanctions (penalty).
Main Court Arguments:
1. Penalty has a compensatory, not punitive nature and should not be disproportionately large relative to the main debt.
2. The court has the right to reduce penalty sanctions, considering principles of fairness, good faith, and reasonableness.
3. Penalty reduction depends on specific case circumstances, degree of obligation fulfillment, debtor’s behavior, and other significant factors.
Court Decision: Uphold previous instances’ decision to reduce penalty by 90% (from 3,933,360.51 UAH to 330,999.47 UAH) and reject LLC “Tviy Gazbut’s” cassation appeal.
Case No. 320/17375/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding inclusion of requirements from the Main Pension Fund Department in Kyiv into the register of accepted creditor claims during liquidation of the Ukrainian Construction and Investment Bank.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that this dispute is not a public law dispute, as the Deposit Guarantee Fund acts not as an authority with administrative powers, but as a bank management body. The court referenced a previous legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which determined that during bank liquidation, the Fund manages property on behalf of the bank and does not exercise administrative management functions. Therefore, such a dispute should be considered under commercial procedural rules.
