Case No. 363/112/23 dated 21/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a Donation Agreement for an Apartment Share, Concluded between Mother and Son.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff did not prove the existence of an error when entering into the donation agreement, as the contract text was clear, the legal consequences were explained to her, and she personally confirmed that she understood the contract terms.
2. The fact that the plaintiff wanted to enter into a lifetime maintenance agreement does not constitute grounds for invalidating the donation agreement, as ignorance of the law is not considered a substantial error.
3. The plaintiff’s change of intentions after the contract’s execution and her son’s death cannot evidence an error at the time of the transaction.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and supported the previous instances’ decision to refuse invalidation of the donation agreement.
Case No. 371/235/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case of Traffic Rules Violation Resulting in Moderate Bodily Injuries to Two Victims.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PERSON_7 on November 21, 2023, while driving a BMW, violated traffic rules, crossed into the oncoming lane, and caused a traffic accident.
2. The court fully proved the person’s guilt, considering mitigating circumstances: young age, sincere remorse, absence of previous convictions.
3. The imposed punishment of restricted freedom with probation for 1 year was deemed fair and proportionate to the committed offense.
Court Decision: Maintain the local court’s verdict and appellate court’s ruling unchanged, reject the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/7914/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of Statement of Claim due to Improper Execution of Power of Attorney by an Advocate Representing a Company’s Interests in Economic Court.
Key Arguments of the Court: Firstly, the advocate’s power of attorney dated 01.07.2021 does not meet the requirements of the Power of Attorney Regulation after 01.01.2022, as the claim was filed on 24.06.2024. Secondly, the advocate did not provide a complete document package, including the legal assistance agreement. Thirdly, the additional power of attorney dated 04.06.2024 also lacked all necessary details.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal, maintain previous court decisions unchanged.
Notably, the court deviated from previous practice, which was more lenient towards formal requirements for advocate document execution.
Case No. 671/319/21 dated 20/02/2025
Case Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case of Murder and Robbery of an Elderly Person with the Aim of Money Theft.
2. Key Arguments of the Court:
– Evidence of the defendant PERSON_8’s guilt is based on witness PERSON_12’s testimony, fully consistent with other case materials
– Forensic medical examinations confirmed the mechanism of inflicting bodily harm to the victim
– Preliminary conspiracy between the accused and mercenary motive were established
– PERSON_8’s own testimony was deemed by the court as false and aimed at avoiding responsibility
3. Court Decision: Maintain the local court’s verdict unchanged, sentencing PERSON_8 to 15 years of imprisonment with property confiscation.
Case No. 161/2519/22 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute:Dispute: Criminal Case Regarding Illegal Acquisition and Storage of Psychotropic Substance PVP with Intent to Sell.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court unreasonably applied provisions for sentence mitigation without proving the defendant’s genuine remorse. The court noted that the defense side essentially contested the qualification of actions under the drug sales article, which calls into question the sincerity of guilt admission. Additionally, the court pointed out the formal approach of the appellate instance in establishing mitigating circumstances.
Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court’s verdict and assign a new review in the appellate court, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 671/319/21 dated 20/02/2025
Dispute Subject: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case of serious violent crimes (murder and robbery).
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions (local and appellate courts) are legal and substantiated. The court established that evidence of the defendants’ guilt is indisputable and fully investigated at previous stages of judicial proceedings. The panel of judges found no grounds for cancellation or modification of previous court decisions.
Court Decision: Leave the verdict of the Khmelnytskyi City District Court and the resolution of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court unchanged, and cassation complaints – unsatisfied.
Case No. 922/851/24 dated 19/02/2025
Dispute Subject: Recognition of a land lease agreement between LLC “Rod-Nyk Invest” and Kharkiv City Council.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The City Council previously made a decision to provide a land plot to the company for lease until 01.09.2025, therefore, refusal to conclude the contract is unjustified.
2. The land plot is located under a building owned by the plaintiff and has a designated purpose for operation and service of a gas filling station.
3. The court believes that inconsistency of technical details of the intended purpose cannot be grounds for refusing to conclude a lease agreement.
Court Decision: Leave previous court decisions unchanged, reject Kharkiv City Council’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 1-1000/2011 dated 24/02/2025
Dispute Subject – Release from criminal liability of a group of persons under several articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular regarding the creation of a criminal organization, fraud, and document forgery.
The court was guided by the fact that the cassation complaint of the victim’s representative does not meet procedural requirements: the lawyer did not provide specific legally significant arguments about the impropriety of releasing the accused from criminal liability, did not prove the circumstances of the defendants’ evasion from court, and did not provide legal grounds for their demands with reference to violations of material or procedural legislation.
The court decided to refuse to request the criminal case based on the cassation complaint of the victim’s representative.
Case No. 910/6681/23 dated 20/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Dispute Subject: Invalidation of transactions regarding the sale of a share in the authorized capital of LLC “Neomed 2007” and related registration actions.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff is the owner of 28.02% of the company’s sharesRopolius Limited, which was previously the sole participant of LLC “Neomed 2007”
– The dispute has characteristics of a corporate nature and is subject to consideration in a commercial court
– The plaintiff substantiates the violation of their corporate rights due to the sale of a share without their consent
– The court emphasizes the plaintiff’s right to judicial protection and access to justice
3. Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Neomed 2007” without satisfaction, the appellate court’s resolution – unchanged.
Case No. 761/35056/19 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court regarding criminal proceedings concerning PERSON_14 and PERSON_10.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and arguments of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal. The court concluded that the appellate court of the previous instance made a correct and substantiated decision. The panel of judges found no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal and changing the previous resolution.
Court decision: Leave the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 369/18964/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of a court decision regarding sentencing of a person who committed a criminal offense in the sphere of illegal drug trafficking during the probation period.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the appellate court incorrectly applied the criminal law, not taking into account that the person committed a new offense during the probation period. Secondly, the court did not attach the unserved part of the previous punishment, as required by Article 71 of the Criminal Code. Thirdly, imposing a fine instead of imprisonment does not correspond to the degree of severity of the committed offense and the person of the convicted, as they already had a criminal record and committed a new crime two months after the previous verdict.
Court decision: Revoke the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 903/825/24 dated 20/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Dispute over recovery of funds under a joint activity agreement, where the agreement itself is mistakenly indicated as the plaintiff, not the legal entity.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The agreement cannot be a party to the court process, as it is a legal fact, not a legal subject
– The plaintiff must be a specific legal entity (in this case – LLC “Nadroviddobuvannia”)
– The court cannot consider a dispute where the agreement is indicated as the plaintiff
– It is necessary to bring the subject composition of the parties in line with the legislation
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, previous court decisions – unchanged.
The court decision clearly demonstrates the importance of correctly identifying parties in a court process.
Case No. 761/35056/19 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute – correctness of closing criminal proceedings due to violation of pre-trial investigation terms.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the period of familiarization with pre-trial investigation materials is not included in the total investigation period. Secondly, only documents collected by the prosecution side are considered pre-trial investigation materials. Thirdly, the defense side does not have the authority to form pre-trial investigation materials, but only provides its own evidence upon request.
The Supreme Court confirmed the previousHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
We hold the position that the period of familiarization of the prosecution side with the materials of the defense side does not affect the pre-trial investigation terms.
Court decision – to leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, that is, to support the closure of criminal proceedings.
Case No. 754/4345/24 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute – return of the prosecutor’s appellate complaint against the court verdict regarding a person convicted of theft during martial law.
The main arguments of the court are that the appellate court erroneously returned the prosecutor’s complaint, considering it filed after the deadline. The Supreme Court established that the complaint was filed on August 14, 2024, that is, within the 30-day appeal period, which was to end on September 05, 2024. The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence, in particular, postal dispatch registers and correspondence tracking, which confirm the timely filing of the complaint.
The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 904/5955/19 dated 24/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Termination of the land lease agreement and its return to the owner due to systematic non-payment of rent.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The company “Karavan-Dnipropetrovsk” has not paid rent in full for a long time (over 30 months).
2. The coefficient of functional use of the land plot (Kf) was clearly reflected in the technical documentation, and the company had the opportunity to verify its legitimacy.
3. The applicant did not provide convincing evidence of newly discovered circumstances that could significantly influence the court’s decision.
Court decision: To leave the previous court rulings on termination of the lease agreement and return of the land plot to the owner unchanged.
Case No. 283/1638/23 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms.
Main arguments of the court:
The court for the first time clearly defined that at the stage of preparatory court session, the court has the right to examine procedural documents to verify the grounds for closing criminal proceedings. In particular, the court may study the decisions of the investigator, prosecutor, and investigating judge if there are no doubts about their reliability.
The court established that the pre-trial investigation period for the suspect PERSON_10 has expired, as the indictment was sent to the court on July 03, 2023, beyond the two-month period provided by law.
The prosecutor attempted to appeal the decision, claiming that the court had no right to examine procedural documents at the preparatory session stage, but the court found his arguments unfounded.
Court decision: To leave unchanged the rulings of the local and appellate courts on closing criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_10.
Case No. 300/2424/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of the Main Pension Fund Directorate regarding limiting the maximum pension size and indexation of a serviceman’s pension.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Constitutional Court previously recognized as unconstitutional the provisions on limiting the maximum pension size for servicemen.
2. The government introduced indexation restrictions of 1500 UAH due to martial law and the need to balance budget expenditures.
3. The indexation restriction aims to protecMeasures to support citizens with low pensions and ensure financial stability of the pension system during wartime.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, canceling the decisions of previous instances regarding the challenge to pension indexation limitation with the amount of 1,500 UAH.
Case No. 522/10909/17 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about murder committed by PERSON_7 on the grounds of jealousy.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly reviewed the defense appeals, did not provide detailed grounds for its decision, and formally approached evidence assessment. The court pointed out the need for a thorough analysis of all defense arguments, particularly regarding potential inadmissibility of evidence, versions of other crime perpetrators, and contradictions in case materials.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and assign a new review in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure for PERSON_7 in the form of detention.
Case No. 759/1229/20 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about causing grievous bodily harm to the victim by a group of persons during a conflict.
Main Court Arguments: The court established that PERSON_8 and PERSON_9 jointly inflicted grievous bodily harm on the victim during a rapidly developing conflict near the entrance and on a children’s playground. Expertise confirmed that bodily injuries could have been caused by both single and multiple traumatic actions. The court concluded that the defendants’ actions were part of a single criminal intent, as they consistently struck the victim within a short time frame.
Court Decision: Leave the Kyiv Appellate Court ruling unchanged and the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 1-104/2004 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal against the Dnipro Appellate Court ruling on returning the application for sentence review under newly discovered circumstances in the criminal case regarding PERSON_7.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that appellate courts lost their authority to consider cases as first-instance courts after adopting the new Criminal Procedure Code in 2012. The application for sentence review, previously issued by the Donetsk Oblast Appellate Court, should be considered by a first-instance court. The court drew attention that current procedural legislation clearly defines the procedure for reviewing such applications and the powers of courts at different instances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the Dnipro Appellate Court ruling and referred the application for determining jurisdiction in the manner prescribed by procedural legislation.
Case No. 914/3386/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s office challenges the Lviv City Council decision on transferring a land plot into ownership of OSBB “Sriblyste” and state registration of this right.
Main Court Arguments: The court concluded that the prosecutor’s demands to cancel the city council decisions and state registration are an ineffective method of protecting the territorial community’s interests. Firstly, since the decisions have already been executed by transferring the land plot to OSBB ownership, their cancellation will not return the plot to the community. Secondly, canceling state registration of rights is not provided for by legislation, as the information entered into the registerSubject to seizure.
Court Decision: The court denied the prosecutor’s claim due to an improper choice of method for protecting the territorial community’s rights.
Case No. 191/3297/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the first instance court’s verdict regarding the release of a person from serving a suspended sentence for theft and illegal seizure of a vehicle.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the local court improperly released the convicted person from serving a suspended sentence, as the imposed punishment exceeds 5 years of imprisonment, which contradicts the requirements of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The appellate court formally reviewed the prosecutor’s complaint without providing proper justifications for applying probation to a person sentenced to more than 5 years.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, revoked the decision of the Dnipro Appellate Court, and assigned a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 1-104/2004 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the defense counsel’s cassation complaint against the Dnipro Appellate Court’s ruling on returning a statement for review of the verdict under newly discovered circumstances.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly returned the statement for verdict review. The court believes that the statement requires a detailed substantive examination rather than a formal return. The panel of judges concluded that the statement should be sent to the court to determine its territorial jurisdiction.
Court Decision: The cassation complaint was partially satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling was revoked, and the case was sent for a new review to determine jurisdiction.
Case No. 904/3385/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of a penalty from the contractor for non-performance of contract works within the contract-specified timeframe.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The contractor did not complete the works by 31.07.2023, which is grounds for contract termination under part two of Article 849 of the Civil Code.
2. Contract termination does not release the party from liability for violations that occurred during the contract’s validity.
3. Contractual sanctions are subject to calculation for the entire delay period until the contract termination date.
Court Decision: Satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, revoke the appellate court’s resolution, and uphold the local commercial court’s decision on recovering penalties and fines from the contractor.
Case No. 753/22315/17 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a person’s acquittal in a case of illegal vehicle seizure and theft.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecution did not provide irrefutable evidence of PERSON_6’s guilt in illegal vehicle seizure.
2. The victim’s testimony was contradictory and inconsistent, as he was in a state of alcohol intoxication.
3. The accused previously had permission to use the victim’s vehicle, which confirms their trusting relationship.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, releasing PERSON_6 from criminal liability for theft due to the expiration of statute of limitations.
Case No. 3/222/09 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging actions of the stateHere is the translation of the first part of the text:
Regarding the state executor’s return of the executive document to the claimant and the obligation to take measures to enforce the court decision on foreclosure of mortgaged property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The mortgage on the real estate was registered on 07.08.2008, which provides the mortgagee with priority over later encumbrances.
2. The seizure of property within criminal proceedings is not an obstacle to the sale of mortgaged property, as the buyer acquires ownership free of such encumbrances.
3. The state executor unjustifiably returned the executive document to the claimant, since the debtor’s property exists and its location is known.
Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the court decisions of previous instances – without changes, obliging the state executor to take measures to enforce the court decision on foreclosure of mortgaged property.
Would you like me to continue translating the rest of the document?
