Case No. 759/20557/20 dated 17/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a claim assignment agreement regarding the return of funds from aircraft sale.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of claim transfer from the original creditor, specifically the claim assignment agreement.
2. The plaintiff did not raise territorial jurisdiction violation during the first instance court proceedings, which precludes cancellation of the court decision on these grounds.
3. Lack of documentary confirmation of claim transfer is an independent and sufficient basis for dismissing the claim.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, keep the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 598/1491/22 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Bank’s return of full amount of funds after cancellation of international money transfer.
Main Court Arguments: The court established that the bank did not provide proper evidence justifying retention of part of the funds. Specifically, the bank did not explain currency conversion reasons and did not provide primary documents on fund movement. Since the legal relations are consumer-related, the court interprets doubts in favor of the client. The bank as a professional market participant is obligated to clearly explain all financial transaction details.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the client’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court ruling, and upheld the district court decision on recovering 303,936.26 UAH of unjustly withheld funds from PrivatBank in favor of the client.
Case No. 201/9425/18 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of apartment partial sale agreement executed by husband without wife’s consent.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court indicated that agreement invalidation is possible only by proving the counterparty’s bad faith, meaning the third party knew or should have known about the lack of consent from the other spouse regarding alienation of joint property. Previous instance courts did not assess the property buyer’s good faith actions and prematurely declared the agreement invalid.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court ruling and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate instance for additional case circumstances investigation.
Case No. 761/31137/23 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legitimacy of returning prosecutor’s appellate complaint without consideration in a state treason case.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the Deputy Head of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol has the right to file an appellate complaint as a higher-level prosecutor. The appellate court groundlessly limited his procedural powers by incorrectly interpreting prosecution legislation. Specifically, the court emphasized that the concept of “higher-level prosecutor” is not identical to “prosecutor of a higher-level prosecution agency”.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court ruling, and scheduled new proceedings in the appellate instance.
Case No. 580/1558/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Military unit refused to accrue additional remuneration and bonus to a serviceman for July 2022.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court incorrectly returned the military unit’s appellate complaint, considering it improperly executed. The court emphasized that the document was created in the “Electronic Court” system using a qualified electronic signature of the military unit representative, thus being correctly signed. The appellate court prematurely concluded that the document was improperly executed, which hindered consideration of the case on its merits.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court [text incomplete]The court satisfied the cassation appeal of the military unit, canceled the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case for retrial.
Case No. 420/2653/24 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of indexation-difference in monetary allowance for a serviceman for the period of service from January 19 to July 18, 2022.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The serviceman is entitled to an indexation-difference of 3,903 hryvnias 40 kopiykas monthly until the next increase in the official salary.
– The government did not raise tariff rates until July 18, 2022.
– Previous court decisions had already established the right to such indexation for the previous period.
– The fact of non-payment of indexation indicates unlawful inaction by the military unit.
3. Court decision: Satisfy the claim and oblige the military unit to pay the indexation-difference in the total amount of 23,420 hryvnias 40 kopiykas for the period of service.
Case No. 128/3616/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Establishing the fact of a father independently raising a child to obtain a deferment from military service.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Establishing the fact of independent child-rearing is related to a dispute about parental rights and may affect the child’s interests.
2. Family legislation does not provide for the possibility of complete renunciation of parental responsibilities.
3. Such a fact can only be established through a lawsuit procedure with mandatory involvement of guardianship and trusteeship authorities.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 646/1580/19 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of electronic auction of an apartment, which was subject to recovery under the husband’s loan agreement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Electronic auction was conducted without procedural violations
– At the time of the auction, the court decision on recovery was valid
– The plaintiff has other housing, so the moratorium on recovery does not apply
– No permission from the guardianship authority is needed for property sale when executing a court decision
– The existence of a later canceled court decision does not affect the legality of the auction
3. Court decision: Leave the electronic auction unchanged, and send the eviction case for a new review.
Case No. 444/2061/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Claim to exclude the son from the right to inherit by law after the father’s death due to evasion from providing assistance.
Main arguments of the court: First, to exclude from inheritance, it is necessary to prove three circumstances simultaneously – the person’s evasion from assistance when possible, the testator’s helpless state, and the need for assistance from this particular person. Second, the plaintiff did not provide irrefutable evidence that the father actually needed outside help and could not independently ensure living conditions. Third, the mere fact of prolonged lack of communication between the son and father is not grounds for depriving the right to inherit.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and denied the cassation appeal, i.e., did not exclude the son from the right to inherit.
Case No. 296/6695/23 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Determining the procedure for communication between a grandmother and granddaughter after a conflict with the child’s parents.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The existence of hostile relations between the parties is not grounds for completely limiting the grandmother’s right to communicate with her granddaughter
– The best interests of the child involve preserving family ties
– Establishing meetingsNeutral Territory Meetings Will Help Avoid Conflict Situations
– Child’s Right to Family Upbringing Includes Communication with Grandmother
3. Court Decision: Leave Unchanged the Appellate Court Resolution Establishing Meetings between Grandmother and Granddaughter Twice a Month for 2 Hours on Neutral Territory in Zhytomyr with Parents’ Participation.
Case No. 240/28167/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Military Unit Challenges Refusal to Restore Deadline for Appealing First Instance Court Decision on Compensation for Income Loss.
Key Court Arguments:
1. Introduction of Martial Law Does Not Automatically Restore Procedural Deadlines.
2. Military Unit Did Not Provide Convincing Evidence of Objective Inability to File an Appeal Timely.
3. Improper Internal Work Organization Cannot Be Considered a Valid Reason for Missing Deadline.
4. Judicial Process Participants, Including State Agencies, Must Act in Good Faith and Timely Comply with Procedural Deadlines.
Court Decision: Supreme Court Left Military Unit’s Cassation Complaint Unsatisfied, Supporting Appellate Court’s Decision to Refuse Restoration of Procedural Deadline.
Case No. 759/5806/20 dated 20/02/2025
Case Concerns Division of Marital Joint Property and Invalidation of Mortgage Agreement.
Court Was Guided by Following Key Arguments: First, Legal Assistance Expenses Must Be Real, Justified, and Proportionate to Dispute Subject; Second, Party in Whose Favor Judicial Decision is Made Has Right to Compensation of Court Expenses; Third, Expense Amount is Determined Based on Provided Evidence and Considering Reasonableness and Proportionality Criteria.
Supreme Court Decided to Leave Unsatisfied Cassation Complaints of PERSON_3 and PERSON_1 and Leave Unchanged Additional Resolution of Kyiv Appellate Court from January 23, 2024.
Case No. 274/4384/23 dated 19/02/2025
Dispute Subject – Deprivation of Parental Rights of PERSON_1 Regarding His Minor Children.
Court Was Guided by Following Key Arguments: First, Father Systematically Did Not Fulfill Parental Obligations, Particularly Not Caring for Children’s Upbringing and Material Provision; Second, Children Were Temporarily Removed from Father Due to Threat to Their Life and Health; Third, Father Committed Psychological and Physical Violence Against Children, Resulting in Their Repeated Leaving Home.
Court Decided to Deprive PERSON_1 of Parental Rights, However Partially Satisfied His Cassation Complaint Regarding Court Expenses, Canceling Decision on Collecting Court Fee, Since Respondent is Second Group Disabled and Exempt from Court Fee.
Case No. 686/20835/21 dated 19/02/2025
Dispute Subject: Debt Collection under Loan Agreements and Recognition of These Agreements as Invalid.
Key Court Arguments: First, Court Detailed Analyzed PERSON_1’s Procedural Actions Regarding Appellate Challenge of Local Court Decision, Recognizing Them as Unfair. Second, Court Established that PERSON_1 Received Court Summons and Provided Explanations, Therefore His References to Non-Receipt of Court Decision Are Unfounded. Third, Supreme Court Emphasized that Missing Appeal Deadline by More Than One and a Half Years is Inadmissible.
Court Decision: Supreme Court Partially Satisfied PERSON_2’s Cassation Complaint, Canceled Appellate Court Decision and Sent Case for New Consideration to Appellate Instance from Stage of Opening Appellate Proceedings.
Case No. 640/13816/22 dated 20/02/2025
Here is a Brief Analysis of Judicial Decision:
Dispute Subject: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions of LLC”BF Project” Regarding Additional Accrual of Profit Tax and Reduction of Negative VAT Value.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court considers the additional tax accruals based on previous inspection findings unlawful, as previous tax notifications-decisions were challenged in court.
2. Regarding interest calculation for fuel pellets supply contract, the court established that the funds are a prepayment for goods, not a financial investment.
3. The court revealed a formal approach by previous judicial instances that did not sufficiently investigate the case circumstances.
Court Decision:
1. Partially satisfy the cassation complaint.
2. Cancel previous instances’ decisions regarding tax notification-decision No. 00069080702 and refer the case for new consideration.
3. Leave other court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 240/28192/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Determination of Goods Code by Limited Liability Company “No Limit” and challenging this decision by Zhytomyr Customs.
The court, when making the decision, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, previous judicial instances (Zhytomyr District Administrative Court and Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal) did not fully investigate all case circumstances regarding correct goods classification; secondly, procedural inaccuracies arose during case consideration that could affect decision objectivity; thirdly, it is necessary to additionally analyze evidence and arguments of both parties to make a fair decision.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for more detailed examination of case circumstances.
Case No. 640/21433/21 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cancellation of tax notification-decision on reducing VAT budget compensation amount.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established the reality of economic transactions between LLC SPC “Ukrorgsynthesis” and LLC “Riva-Steel” for laboratory equipment repair.
2. Primary documents confirm actual work performance, have necessary details and reflect economic substance of transactions.
3. Minor document formatting deficiencies cannot be grounds for challenging transaction reality.
Court Decision: Leave cassation complaint unsatisfied, keep appellate court resolution unchanged, i.e., recognize tax notification-decision as unlawful and cancel it.
Case No. 279/122/23-c dated 18/02/2025
Here is the court decision analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Dispute about excluding service apartment from service housing list.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Plaintiff (railway employee) applied to JSC “Ukrainian Railways” requesting exclusion of his service apartment from service housing list.
– Respondent required plaintiff to provide complete document package, including information certificate from State Registry of Property Rights for all family members.
– Plaintiff did not provide all necessary documents, so his application was not considered on merits.
3. Court Decision: Deny plaintiff’s claim to oblige JSC “Ukrainian Railways” to consider apartment exclusion from service housing list.
The court decision demonstrates a clear position regarding compliance with established procedure when considering service housing issues.
Case No. 487/8757/21 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid supplementary agreement No. 2 dated November 5, 2020, on terminating apartment construction contract.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that LLC “Telets-VAK” acted in bad faith, as it initially agreed to complete the apartment and return funds, then unexpectedly filed a lawsuit to declare the agreement invalid.
2. The respondent reasonably relied on previous statements.1. and the plaintiff’s behavior, expecting to receive an apartment.
3. The plaintiff did not prove that the disputed transaction violated their rights, but rather is attempting to abuse procedural rights.
Court decision: To uphold the decision of the court of first instance to reject the claim of LLC “Telets-VAK” to declare the supplementary agreement invalid.
Case No. 400/11695/23 dated 20/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Dispute regarding the right of a State Bureau of Investigations employee to receive a one-time monetary assistance upon dismissal by mutual agreement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Article 9 of the Pension Provision Law contains an exhaustive list of grounds for receiving dismissal assistance
– Dismissal by mutual agreement is not included in the list of grounds for receiving 50% assistance
– References to “integrity” and analogy with other laws are not a legal basis for payment
– Different grounds for dismissal have different legal nature and cannot be equated
3. Court decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., to reject the one-time monetary assistance payment.
Case No. 373/68/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cancellation of an administrative offense resolution issued to PERSON_1 under part 3 of Article 85 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
Main arguments of the court: First, a prosecutor cannot file an appellate complaint instead of an authority that has already exercised its right to appeal. Second, non-compliance by the State Agency with procedural requirements when filing an appellate complaint is not grounds for prosecutor intervention. Third, a prosecutor can represent state interests only in exceptional cases of complete inaction or improper protection by state bodies.
Court decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 380/4842/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recalculation of old-age pension using the average salary indicator for 2021-2023 when transitioning from service pension.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that when transitioning from a service pension to an old-age pension, the average salary indicator for the last three years (2021-2023) should be applied, not the previous period. The court referenced previous decisions stating that pension assignment under a different law is not a transfer but a new pension assignment.
Court decision: To fully satisfy the claim – to oblige the Pension Fund to recalculate the pension using the average salary indicator for 2021-2023 and recover court expenses in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 460/2711/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the inaction of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding pension indexation in 2022 and 2023.
Main arguments of the court: The court established that when recalculating pensions assigned in 2020-2023, it is necessary to increase the average salary indicator directly used for pension calculation at its assignment, not the fixed indicator as of October 1, 2017. This is because Procedure No. 124 is not consistent with part two of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, as it differently defines the indicator subject to increase.
Court decision: The court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the Pension Fund’s inaction as unlawful and obliging it to conduct pension indexation from September 13, 2023, using coefficients 1.14 and 1.197, while leaving the claims for the period from March 1, 2022, to September 12, 2023, unexamined due to missed court appeal deadline.
Case No. 759/6542/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the dismissal of an employee of a psychoneurological boarding home for systematic failure to perform official duties.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– Disciplinary penalties (reprimands) were imposed without clear evidence of the employee’s guilt
– The plaintiff was absent from work due to sick leave and vacation, and her duties were performed by other employees
– There was no new misconduct between the two orders of reprimand and dismissal
– The employer did not prove systematic violations of labor discipline
Court Decision: Reinstate the employee in her position and recover average salary for the period of forced absence.
Notably, the Supreme Court essentially supported the employee’s position and recognized her dismissal as unlawful.
Case No. 205/859/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of belonging to Ukrainian citizenship and granting the right to acquire citizenship.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the applicant was born in Ukraine before August 24, 1991, but has a passport of a Russian Federation citizen.
2. The fact of birth and residence in Ukraine has already been documented, so there is no need to establish these facts in court.
3. The citizenship issue cannot be resolved through civil proceedings, as it is an administrative procedure.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings, recommending the applicant challenge the actions of the migration service through administrative procedures.
Case No. 201/9312/21 dated 19/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Claiming a part of a residential house and challenging public auctions through which the property was alienated from the original owner.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The property was removed from the plaintiff’s possession against her will during public auctions in enforcement proceedings
– The court decision on the basis of which the auctions were conducted was canceled
– The auction winner and subsequent property acquirer were recognized as unscrupulous, as they knew about the circumstances of the case and the plaintiff’s rights
– The plaintiff did not miss the statute of limitations, as she learned about the property alienation only in 2021
3. Court Decision: Claim 1/2 part of the property in favor of the plaintiff from the last acquirer PERSON_3.
Important: The court confirmed the owner’s right to reclaim property even after several resales if previous acquirers were unscrupulous.
Case No. 560/17357/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the refusal to recalculate a military serviceman’s pension service with consideration of preferential service conditions in special climatic conditions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff served in Kazakhstan (Zharmin district) from 1985 to 1993, which entitles her to preferential service calculation – one month of service counted as one and a half months.
2. Current legislation provides for the possibility of including such service period on preferential terms for pension calculation.
3. The respondent unreasonably refused to recalculate the service period without providing proper legal grounds for such refusal.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the respondent to re-examine the application for clarifying work service and make a decision considering the Supreme Court’s position.
Case No. 200/4317/22 dated 20/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of tax invoices for LLC “SUGAR TRADE LTD”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Circumstances that the State Tax Service considers newly discovered (contractor’s letter about absence of operations, criminal proceedings) do not meet the criteria of newly discovered circumstances.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
A few issues arose after the court decision:
– The court previously did not investigate the reality of economic transactions but verified the legitimacy of the decision to suspend tax invoice registration.
– The existence of criminal proceedings without a final decision is not evidence in the procedural law sense.
3. Court decision: To leave the previous court decisions unchanged, which satisfied the claim of LLC “TSUKORTRADE LTD” regarding tax invoice registration.
Case No. 2-2293/11 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of private executors regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for an already expired writ of execution.
Main arguments of the court:
1. At the time of the person’s appeal to the court, the resolution on opening enforcement proceedings dated October 23, 2021, was valid and necessitated seeking court protection for violated rights.
2. The actions of private executor Holiachenko were qualified as improper, as he opened enforcement proceedings for a document whose term had already expired.
3. The court took into account that the lawyer actually provided legal assistance: drafting a complaint, submitting it to the court, and representing the client’s interests.
Court decision: To leave the private executor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the court decisions on recovering legal assistance costs – unchanged.
Case No. 298/1350/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of PERSON_1’s belonging to the family members of a deceased serviceman to receive a one-time monetary assistance.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that there is no real dispute about the right between the applicant and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, as the agency is not a subject of receiving social assistance. The court of previous instances erroneously left the application without consideration, as establishing the fact of family relations does not violate the rights of other persons and can be carried out in the procedure of separate proceedings.
Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the previous court decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/283/24 dated 19/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice to dismiss a judge from the position for committing a significant disciplinary offense.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The dismissal decision was made by a legitimate composition of the HCJ
– Motions for recusal of HCJ members were considered and rejected without procedural violation
– The previous court decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the disciplinary proceedings
– The court cannot re-evaluate the circumstances of the disciplinary case, but only verify the procedure compliance
3. Court decision: Reject the judge’s claim to cancel the dismissal decision.
Important: The court clearly adhered to the principle that in such a case, not the essence of the disciplinary offense is checked, but the procedural correctness of the dismissal decision.
Case No. 520/15675/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the Prosecutor General dated 30.04.2021 No. 136 on declaring invalid the orders regarding the creation of personnel commissions for prosecutor selection.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The term for appealing to the court was correctly calculated from 20.10.2021, when the plaintiff became aware of the order’s content.
2. The circumstances of martial law and hostilities are not an automatic basis for renewing the procedural term.
3. The court first drew attention that the conclusions of previous courts about the non-validity of reasons for missing the term are premature and require additional assessment.
Court decision: Cancel the previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed assessment of the circumstances of missing the term.
Case No. 260/7992/23 dated 20Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 686/23516/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute – removal of a child from the father and return to the mother at the previous place of residence.
Main arguments of the court: First, at the time of filing a lawsuit, the child’s place of residence was not officially determined by any court decision or guardianship authority. Second, the father’s consent to register the child’s place of residence does not automatically establish the child’s place of residence. Third, the claim for child removal based on Article 162 of the Family Code is premature without a prior court decision on the place of residence.
Court decision – to cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the first instance court’s decision to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 757/35839/21-ц dated 06/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Recovery of funds from the bank under bank deposit agreements concluded in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea before 2014.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The bank is a proper defendant, as the transfer of debt to a third party (LLC “Finilon”) occurred without the depositor’s consent, which does not create legal consequences.
2. The plaintiff properly submitted an application to terminate bank deposit agreements on May 19, 2021, which the bank received but unreasonably refused to return the funds.
3. The court considered that bank deposits are property within the meaning of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore subject to protection.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the claim, recovering from the bank in favor of the plaintiff the deposit amounts and accrued interest totaling 168,647.97 US dollars.
Case No. 520/2948/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by the State Tax Service regarding additional corporate income tax and VAT for LLC “COMPANY “PLASMA”.
Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff’s business transactions are real and confirmed by primary documents
– The controlling authority did not provide adequate evidence of the transactions’ unreality
– Tax information by itself is not evidence of violations
– The fact of criminal proceedings against counterparties is not conclusive proof of fictitious transactions
Court decision: Maintain the previous instances’ decisions and reject the State Tax Service’s cassation appeal.
Important: The court consistently adheres to the presumption of the taxpayer’s good faith.
Case No. 761/22952/18 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of paragraph 16 of the electricity usage agreement regarding additional charges for electricity losses.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The contract was concluded in 2003 in compliance with all necessary requirements, parties had full civil capacity, and the transaction was aimed at real electricity supply.
2. The plaintiff did not challenge the contract terms for 15 years and did not contact the defendant regarding changes to its provisions, which indicates a conscious acceptance of all conditions.
3. The court established that at the time of contract conclusion, its terms did not contradict legislation, and the plaintiff’s mere disagreement with individual provisionsHere is the translation of the provided legal text:
Judicial Decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous court instances to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 185/4747/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages caused to a person as a result of injury in the territory of the anti-terrorist operation in Luhansk Oblast.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The state does not automatically bear responsibility for damage caused in a controlled territory during an armed conflict.
2. The plaintiff did not prove that the state could have prevented his injury, knowing about a specific threat of land mining.
3. There is no direct causal relationship between the state’s actions and the received injuries.
Court Decision: Dismiss the claim for compensation of moral damages from the State of Ukraine.
Case No. 638/7132/15-ц dated 30/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of ownership rights to a mandatory inheritance share by a foreigner.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The court fundamentally changed the approach to determining the status of disability for foreigners in inheritance law. It clearly indicated that for a foreigner, the disability status should be determined by the legislation of the country of citizenship, not Ukraine. This is a principled position that was not previously so obvious in judicial practice.
Secondly, the court emphasized that civil legislation contains no restrictions for foreigners regarding the right to a mandatory inheritance share. The only condition is that the person must be disabled under the law of their state.
Thirdly, the court stressed the principle of legal equality and the impossibility of applying public norms to private legal relations.
Court Decision: Cancel the decision of the appellate court, uphold the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the foreign woman’s claim for recognition of rights to a mandatory inheritance share.
Case No. 260/8186/23 dated 20/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor attempted to compel a municipal hospital to bring a protective structure into a state of readiness due to its unsatisfactory technical condition.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– A prosecutor can represent state interests only in two cases: when a government body does not protect interests or such a body is absent
– The State Emergency Service does not have a legally established right to independently file lawsuits about bringing protective structures into proper condition
– Changes in legislation did not provide the State Emergency Service with additional powers for such lawsuits
– A prosecutor cannot automatically replace a government body in court proceedings
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, that is, support previous court decisions to return the prosecutor’s statement of claim.
Case No. 757/52379/21-ц dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid a purchase and sale agreement for an apartment between PERSON_3 and PERSON_2, with the aim of avoiding performance of debt obligations under a loan agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court analyzed the circumstances of the case through the prism of the principle of good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights.
2. It was established that the purchase and sale agreement was concluded after PERSON_3 had incurred debt to PERSON_1 under a loan agreement and a claim for debt recovery was filed.
3. The cassation court indicated that to qualify a transaction as fraudulent, it is necessary to prove a combination of circumstances: the moment of contract conclusion, connection between parties, price, and reality of settlements.
Court Decision: Court decisions regarding the resolution of claims about declaring the agreement invalid were canceled, and the case was referred for a new hearing to the court of first instance for additional investigation of circumstances.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in previous court decisions of the Irpin City Court and Kyiv Court of Appeal. These violations are so substantial that they make it impossible to adopt a lawful and substantiated decision on the merits of the criminal proceedings. The court concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new trial in the court of first instance to properly investigate all circumstances of the case.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and assign a new review of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 495/1259/21 from 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the transfer of a land plot to private ownership illegal and returning it to communal ownership.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and recognized that changing the type of land use within the same land category (from recreational purpose for recreational facilities to individual summer house construction) does not require a special procedure for changing the intended purpose.
2. The court established that the land plot belongs to the category of recreational lands, confirmed by the State Land Cadastre data.
3. The Court of Appeal erroneously considered the land plot to be part of water fund lands, without taking into account that the boundaries of the coastal protection zone within settlements are established by urban planning documentation.
Court Decision: Revoke the Court of Appeal’s resolution regarding the requirement to return the land plot and leave the first instance court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 757/38861/20-c from 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a private executor regarding forced execution of court decisions on debt collection from the debtor.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The debtor filed a complaint against the private executor’s actions with an expired statutory time limit
– The private executor took appropriate actions to determine the debtor’s place of residence, search for their property, and ensure access to immovable property
– The court established that the executor sent notifications to the debtor at various addresses and conducted search measures
– Part of the debtor’s claims are subject to consideration through civil proceedings, not judicial control
Court Decision: Leave cassation appeals unsatisfied and appellate court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 340/8256/21 from 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Labor Service’s resolution imposing a fine of 660,000 UAH on LLC “Agrosvitzbut” for allegedly not formalizing employment contracts with employees.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, during the inspection visit, the company provided orders and notifications about hiring 11 employees. Second, the respondent (State Labor Service) did not provide convincing evidence that employees were allowed to work without employment contracts. Third, inspectors’ photographs did not contain clear evidence of violation, as it was impossible to establish time, place, and persons in the images.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left previous instances’ decisions unchanged and denied the State Labor Service’s cassation appeal, supporting the position of canceling the fine.
Case No. 640/8835/22 from 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine illegal regarding not reinstating a diplomatic officer to an equivalent position after returning from a long-term assignment.
Main Arguments of the Court:1. After the completion of a long-term business trip, diplomatic service officials are guaranteed the provision of an equivalent position.
2. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine did not fulfill its obligation regarding the employment of the employee after his return.
3. The plaintiff’s actions (submitting job applications, complaints) demonstrated his desire to be employed, and the respondent’s inaction was of a continuing nature.
Court decision: The court ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to provide the plaintiff with an equivalent position and recover average wages for the period of forced absence in the amount of 243,508.29 UAH.
Case No. 460/14056/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the conclusion of the Eastern Office of the State Audit Service regarding the violation of the public procurement procedure for vehicle repair and maintenance services.
Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court believes that previous court decisions require review due to incomplete investigation of the case circumstances. First, the courts did not establish whether the disputed contract terms regarding price changes were actually used. Second, the real possibility of performing the maintenance contract in different regions of Ukraine was not verified. Third, the proportionality of the proposed method of remedying violations was not assessed, especially considering the critical importance of vehicle repair services during martial law.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 522/6708/19 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of contracts and registration actions regarding property rights to an apartment, as well as removal of obstacles in using immovable property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. There is indeed a dispute between the parties regarding ownership of the apartment, which the plaintiff considers to have been illegally seized as a result of registration actions by the Ministry of Justice.
2. The court established that failure to take interim measures in the form of prohibiting registration actions may lead to alienation of the disputed property and complicate the execution of a future court decision.
3. Prohibition of registration actions is proportionate to the claims and aimed at protecting the plaintiff’s rights.
Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice and support the appellate court’s ruling prohibiting registration actions regarding the disputed apartment.
Case No. 400/4559/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognizing the inaction of a military unit as unlawful regarding non-submission of a certificate of a serviceman’s participation in Ukraine’s defense measures.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court believes that the courts of previous instances incorrectly approached the assessment of case circumstances. First, they did not request additional information about the nature of tasks performed by the plaintiff during the business trip. Second, the courts unreasonably shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff, which contradicts the principles of administrative legal proceedings. Third, the courts erroneously considered the absence of detailed combat documents as a basis for refusing to grant combatant status.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for a new hearing to comprehensively and objectively clarify all circumstances.
Case No. 207/550/20 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding PERSON_7 convicted of thefts from stores.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that for some theft episodes (05, 25 December 2019), the law establishing criminal liability had expired, therefore the proceedings in this part were closed. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, modifying previous court decisions and reclassifyingHere is the translation of the text:
Court Decision: Partially cancel previous court decisions, close proceedings on some episodes, sentence PERSON_7 to imprisonment for 3 years for theft from the “Products-21” store and a final sentence of 4 years 3 months.
Case No. 420/11599/24 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Odesa Oblast regarding reduction of VAT budget refund for LLC “Technokoncept” for July 2023.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Plaintiff’s primary documents confirm the reality of economic transactions for goods purchase
– The controlling authority did not provide convincing evidence of transactions’ unreality
– Minor document formatting deficiencies cannot indicate absence of economic transactions
– Electronic payment orders and other primary documents comply with legislation
3. Court Decision: Cancel tax notifications-decisions of the controlling authority and refuse to obligate entering data into the budget refund register.
Important: The court confirmed the presumption of taxpayer’s good faith.
Case No. 990/284/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging the inaction of the President of Ukraine regarding non-issuance of a decree appointing a person to the position of judge of the Sviatoshynskyi District Court of Kyiv.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, the President of Ukraine is obliged to consider the High Council of Justice’s submission on judicial appointments within the legally established timeframes; secondly, non-issuance of a decree on judicial appointment is unlawful inaction; thirdly, the person who filed the lawsuit has the right to judicial protection of their rights and legitimate interests.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the lawsuit, recognizing the President’s inaction as unlawful and obliging him to consider the High Council of Justice’s submission on appointing a person to the judicial position.
Case No. 354/610/15-c dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor seeks to recover a land plot of 0.25 hectares in Polianytsia village, which previously belonged to the state forestry but was illegally transferred to private ownership.
Main Court Arguments:
1. At the time of case consideration, the land plot was no longer in the possession of the original defendants but was registered to LLC “Bukovel”.
2. The prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of involving the proper defendant earlier.
3. Invalidating the state act is not an effective method of protecting property rights.
4. To recover property, a lawsuit must be filed against the actual owner, not previous possessors.
Court Decision: Refuse the prosecutor’s claim to recover the land plot and declare the state act invalid.
Case No. 307/3036/19 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of unjustifiably retained funds for land plot use.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The appellate court closed the proceedings due to jurisdiction violations, considering the dispute should be heard in the commercial court.
2. The court noted that closing proceedings due to jurisdictional issues is not grounds for automatic recovery of court expenses in favor of the defendant.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the final distribution of court expenses should occur in the commercial court based on the substantive case review.
Court Decision: Cancel the additional resolution of the appellate court and refuse compensation for legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 754/12510/17 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging actions of a private executor in enforcement proceedings.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_1’s appellate complaint was returned due to improp
