Case No. 522/5637/16-c dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the investment agreement dated January 12, 2010, between PERSON_1, PERSON_3, and PERSON_2 regarding the reconstruction of a dormitory premises.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the possibility of qualifying the agreement as fraudulent, meaning it was concluded with the purpose of evading a court decision on debt recovery.
– Family relationships between the parties to the agreement were established, which may indicate the artificial nature of the transaction.
– The agreement was concluded after the debt under contractor agreements arose, which may indicate an intent to create obstacles for debt collection.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new review to thoroughly examine the circumstances of the agreement’s conclusion.
Note: The court deviated from its previous position regarding the qualification of fictitious transactions, expanding the grounds for declaring agreements invalid.
Case No. 9901/396/21 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the President of Ukraine unlawful regarding the non-issuance of a decree appointing PERSON_1 as a judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Zaporizhzhia.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The inaction of the President of Ukraine is a continuing offense, as the absence of actions regarding the consideration of the High Council of Justice’s submission has been ongoing since 2020.
2. The time limit for filing a lawsuit is not restricted, as it concerns a continuing violation of an individual’s rights, and the state should not benefit from its own violations.
3. The court cannot compel the President to issue a decree, as this would interfere with his constitutional powers, but can require him to consider the High Council of Justice’s submission.
Court Decision: Uphold the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court, which obligates the President of Ukraine to consider the High Council of Justice’s submission regarding the appointment of PERSON_1 as a judge.
Case No. 296/7668/21 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the procedure for use and division of a land plot of 0.4594 hectares, on which a warehouse hangar owned by the plaintiff is located.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff purchased the warehouse hangar and has the right to the land plot under this object in accordance with the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it.
2. Previous instance courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, particularly did not determine specific conditions for land plot use.
3. When dividing the land plot, the court did not take into account the interests of other users and did not analyze the ratio of real estate and land plot area.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court rulings and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 910/6731/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance in appellate proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the appellate commercial court incorrectly applied part 5 of Article 130 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which applies only to cases of termination of proceedings or leaving the claim without consideration.
2. In this case, the appeal was considered on its merits, so general rules for the distribution of court expenses under Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code should be followed.Translation:
3. The Respondent timely declared the intention to receive compensation for legal assistance and submitted relevant evidence within the statutory period.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Commercial Court of Appeal and remand the case for a new review to re-evaluate evidence regarding court expenses.
Case No. 903/483/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of a lease agreement between the Volyn Regional Council and the Children’s Public Organization “Football Club ‘Adrenaline'” due to breach of contract terms.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Appellate Court went beyond the claim requirements by including non-payment of lease payments as grounds for contract termination, which was not stated in the original claim.
2. The plaintiff independently determines the subject and grounds of the claim, and the court cannot change them on its own initiative.
3. Procedural legislation prohibits the appellate court from examining circumstances that were not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Commercial Court of Appeal and remand the case for a new review to the appellate court for comprehensive and objective analysis of the case circumstances.
Case No. 922/938/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: An individual entrepreneur challenges the recovery of funds by the Society for utility services and maintenance of a multi-apartment building without concluding a direct contract.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Society concluded a management agreement with the previous house manager and actually provided utility services to co-owners.
2. The plaintiff did not provide evidence of challenging the management agreement or the illegality of the Society performing management functions.
3. The plaintiff actually received utility and housing services and therefore must pay for them in accordance with the legislation.
Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decisions to reject the claim and recover funds from the individual entrepreneur in favor of the Society.
Case No. 910/15474/23 dated 20/02/2025
Case Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a contract clause regarding VAT inclusion in the price and recovery of overpaid funds from “Arian-Trade” LLC in favor of the military unit.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The military unit belongs to the category of entities for which goods supply operations are taxed at zero rate according to CMU Resolution No. 178
– Including VAT in the contract price contradicts current legislation, as the goods were subject to taxation at zero rate
– The company unjustifiably received VAT funds, which constitutes unlawful enrichment
3. Court Decision: Uphold previous court rulings on invalidating the contract clause and recovering overpaid VAT funds from the company.
Case No. 673/1257/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of a person being dependent on her husband as of the date of his death.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court determined that the case of establishing a fact with legal significance is subject to consideration under civil proceedings, as there is no dispute about rights. 2. The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing such a fact is not related to resolving a rights dispute but aims to confirm circumstances for the person to exercise their rights. 3. Previous instance courts erroneously believed that the case should be considered in an administrativeHere is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
in a manner that restricts the applicant’s right to judicial protection.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and sent the case for retrial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/3231/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for balancing electric energy between DTEK Zakhidenergo JSC and Private Joint Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The defendant did not pay invoices for balancing electric energy totaling 1,562,356,480.85 UAH for the period from September 2023 to February 2024, despite signed purchase and sale acts.
2. The court established that the defendant had the ability to make payment from other own accounts, and references to the lack of funds in the special account do not exempt from liability.
3. Purchase and sale acts for December 2023 – February 2024 were not signed by the plaintiff due to technical remarks regarding price calculation, but this is not grounds for exemption from payment for actually provided services.
Court Decision: To recover from Private Joint Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo” in favor of DTEK Zakhidenergo JSC the principal debt of 1,562,356,480.85 UAH, inflation losses of 17,127,530.59 UAH, and 3% per annum of 13,843,917.68 UAH.
Case No. 9901/416/21 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim by PERSON_1 against the President of Ukraine for recognizing inaction as unlawful and compelling certain actions.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions of the Cassation Administrative Court are well-founded. The court recognized that the actions (or inaction) of the President of Ukraine do not violate the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff. The court’s reasoning is based on a detailed examination of all case circumstances and compliance of the President’s actions with current legislation.
Court Decision: To leave the appeal of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy without satisfaction, and the previous decision of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged.
Case No. 910/181/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of insurance compensation for lost cargo during military operations.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The insurance certificate dated 23.02.2022 is a valid document confirming cargo insurance, despite being a copy.
2. The plaintiff timely reported the insurance event, considering the complex circumstances of martial law and loss of communication with the driver.
3. The insurance contract provided coverage for military risks, therefore the insurance company’s refusal to pay is unjustified.
Court Decision: To recover from the insurance company “Megapolis Insurance Society” in favor of LLC “UK Distribution” insurance compensation in the amount of 2,918,895 UAH.
Case No. 918/618/24 dated 20/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of shared participation funds for urban infrastructure development from a developer for the construction of a multi-apartment residential building.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The developer did not apply to the city council to determine the amount of shared participation
– Some apartments were built with state support, but this does not exempt from full payment of the shared contribution
– Legislation does not provide for partial exemption from shared participation
– 98% of apartments were sold on a commercial basis
3. DecisionCourt Decision: To recover from the company 3,406,751.38 UAH of shared participation in favor of Rivne City Council.
The court decision clearly demonstrates the consistent position of the Supreme Court regarding the mandatory payment of shared contributions by developers.
Case No. 906/124/24 dated 20/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the acceptance and transfer act of completed works and the act of dismantling a temporary trading structure dated 03.01.2016.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Dismantling and acceptance and transfer acts were subject to review in the previous court case No. 906/65/17
– The enterprise did not provide convincing evidence of the fictitious nature of these documents
– The enterprise’s refusal to sign the acts does not mean their invalidity
– The court believes that the plaintiff did not prove violation of their rights in the preparation of documents
3. Court decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, court decisions of previous instances – without changes.
It is interesting that the court thoroughly examined the procedural aspects of the case and reasonably explained the reasons for refusing the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 363/641/22 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of property rights to an apartment and its recovery from illegal possession of the private enterprise “Prolisok 2000”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. PERSON_1 legally acquired property rights to the apartment as a construction investor through a rights assignment agreement dated February 4, 2019.
2. After completion of construction and commissioning, the investor acquires ownership rights to the invested object.
3. The developer is deprived of the right to alienate the investment object in favor of other persons after fulfilling the investment agreement conditions.
Court decision: To leave PERSON_2’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, and court decisions of previous instances – without changes, i.e., to confirm PERSON_1’s right to recover the apartment from illegal possession of PE “Prolisok 2000”.
Case No. 991/8069/24 dated 24/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition as unjustified and recovery to state revenue of an apartment and a car purchased by PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– It is established that PERSON_1 is a person authorized to perform state functions (police department head)
– The apartment was purchased by PERSON_3’s daughter but actually used by parents
– Sources of funds for asset acquisition are questionable
– Difference between asset value and declared income is 2,165,134.55 UAH
3. Court decision: To satisfy the claim and recover to state revenue an apartment at ADDRESS_1 and a Volkswagen Touareg 2016.
The decision can be appealed within 30 days.
Case No. 911/3095/23 dated 21/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the ruling of the Economic Court of Kyiv Region on opening bankruptcy proceedings for LLC “Bardazh”.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly assessed the reasons for missing the deadline to appeal the court decision by PERSON_1. In particular, the court did not take into account that the complainant:
– Was the director of LLC “Bardazh” before bankruptcy proceedings
– Lost access to the company’s electronic cabinet
– Did not receive a copy of the court decision
– Learned about the decision only on 01.10.2024 after receiving a subsidiary liability claim.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the appellate
