Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 908/2596/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Company “TOLEXIS TRADING LIMITED” challenges the decision of the annual general meeting of LLC “Zaporizhzhia Titanium-Magnesium Combine”, where its representative was not allowed to vote due to the absence of the original power of attorney.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The company’s charter clearly defines that a participant’s representative at the general meeting must have a power of attorney.
2. The Company’s representative arrived at the meeting but did not provide the original or notarized copy of the power of attorney, only a lawyer’s warrant.
3. The Company was duly notified about the meeting and even proposed additional agenda items.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court denied the Company’s cassation appeal and left the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 904/561/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of advance payment under a contract for reconstruction of heating networks due to alleged non-performance of work by the contractor.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Previous instance courts incorrectly assessed evidence of work performance by the contractor, in particular, did not investigate documents confirming partial work completion before contract termination.
2. Courts did not establish which specific works were performed and for what amount, making it impossible to conclude about complete non-performance of the contract and the need to return the advance.
3. The fact of non-signing of work completion certificates does not indicate non-performance of work, as the obligation to accept and evaluate the work is placed on the customer.
Court Decision: Cassation appeal was satisfied, court decisions of previous instances were canceled, the case was sent for a new review to the court of first instance to further investigate the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 759/22685/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legality of sentencing a person convicted of illegal acquisition and storage of a narcotic substance (methadone).
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment of restricted freedom with exemption from serving is fair.
2. The decision took into account the convicted person’s status of being in a rehabilitation center to overcome drug addiction, his sincere repentance, and the absence of aggravating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court supported the previous instances’ position about the inappropriateness of imposing a fine due to the absence of a permanent income for the convicted person.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate instance, taking into account the Supreme Court’s remarks.
Case No. 320/9481/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position on missing the term for court appeal, as the plaintiff did not observe the one-month term for challenging the tax notification-decision after completing the administrative procedure. The court considered the specifics of terms during martial law and explained that court appeal terms were resumed from 27.05.2022. Additionally, the court referred to the ECHR practice, which allows restrictions on the right to court appeal to ensure legal certainty.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 456/3190/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of property rights to an apartment under an inheritance contract and securing the claim by prohibiting the defendant from using the disputed real estate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. There is a real dispute between the parties regarding the inheritance1. Property – an apartment that belonged to the plaintiff’s grandmother during her lifetime.
2. The courts have established that there is a threat of property damage by the defendant, and failure to take interim measures may complicate the execution of a future court decision.
3. Interim measures (prohibition from entering the apartment and transfer of keys to a notary) are proportionate to the stated claims and aimed at protecting the plaintiff’s rights.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and supported the previous instances’ decision on interim measures.
Case No. 554/5000/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against a person who distributed materials on Facebook denying the Russian armed aggression against Ukraine and containing calls for seizure of state power.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in the case consideration by lower courts. First, the court of first instance did not ensure that the accused fully understands the content of the charges, especially considering the presence of a mental disorder. Second, the court did not explain to the accused the consequences of considering the case under a simplified procedure and deprivation of the right to appeal the case circumstances.
Court Decision: Revoke the judgment of the Zhovtnevyi District Court and the resolution of the Poltava Court of Appeal, appointing a new hearing in the court of first instance taking into account the provided recommendations.
Case No. 910/4492/22 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the decision of the permanent commission of Kyivgaz JSC on additional calculation of unaccounted natural gas volumes.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Previous instance courts satisfied the claim, believing that the respondent did not fulfill the obligation to identify the consumer and draw up an act in their presence.
2. The Supreme Court pointed out the prematurity of such conclusions, as the courts did not investigate all case circumstances, in particular:
– Whether there was unfair behavior by the plaintiff
– Whether the plaintiff’s participation in the commission meeting could influence the decision
– Whether the formal non-notification about the act review is significant
3. The court emphasized the need for comprehensive evidence assessment and establishing all legally significant case circumstances.
Court Decision: Revoke court decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 991/702/25 dated 24/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery in state revenue of assets of a person supporting Russian aggression against Ukraine by spreading anti-Ukrainian propaganda.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 systematically spreads pro-Russian propaganda, justifies RF aggression against Ukraine
– Their public actions are aimed at discrediting Ukraine and supporting Russian policy
– They consciously contribute to Russian aggression through information activities
– Their actions create a threat to Ukraine’s national security
3. Court Decision: Fully satisfy the claim of the Ministry of Justice and recover into state revenue real estate, vehicles, and shares in the authorized capital of companies belonging to PERSON_1.
Case No. 369/10806/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict on bicycle theft by a person who claimed to have found the item.
Main Court Arguments: IMPORTANTLY, the court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and established that the person’s actions have signs of theft, not finding retention. In particular, the defendant found a bicycle near a fence, being aware that it has an owner, but did not take any measures to return it, instead quickly surrendering it to a pawnshop. The court considered…Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Took into account the previous convictions of the person for mercenary crimes and their intent to unlawfully seize property.
Court Decision: The defense attorney’s cassation complaint was left unsatisfied, previous court decisions remain unchanged.
Case No. 725/3700/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against a person who created and sold harmful software through the Internet.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly verified the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and procedural violations. In particular, the appellate court formally approached the analysis of the defense attorney’s arguments, not providing substantive responses to each argument and not properly checking the procedural violations pointed out by the defense.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance with a requirement to thoroughly investigate all circumstances and provide a legal assessment of the defense’s arguments.
Case No. 910/16372/21 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 139,090,410.96 UAH of unjustly acquired funds from Joint Stock Company “Kyivmetrobud” in favor of the Kyiv City Council.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The defendant received budget funds of Kyiv city under a construction contract but used them not for their intended purpose, placing them in bank deposit accounts.
2. The contract clearly stipulated that the advance should be used exclusively for purchasing construction materials, not for obtaining bank interest.
3. Placing budget funds on deposit contrary to the contract terms and the principle of targeted use of budget funds is grounds for recovery of unjustly acquired funds.
Court Decision: To recover from Joint Stock Company “Kyivmetrobud” in favor of the Kyiv City Council 139,090,410.96 UAH of unjustly acquired funds.
Case No. 442/3412/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding a person accused of illegal sale of narcotic substances in a correctional colony.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court formally approached the review of the defense attorney’s appeal, not providing detailed motivation for refuting the defense’s arguments. The court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments about possible procedural violations during the pre-trial investigation, did not thoroughly examine the protocols of covert investigative actions, and did not provide a comprehensive assessment of the defense’s arguments.
Court Decision: To cancel the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate instance with the selection of a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Case No. 607/19624/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case regarding PERSON_8, who resisted police officers, damaged an administrative document, and inflicted bodily injuries on a police officer.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established the guilt of PERSON_8 based on a set of indisputable evidence, including victim testimony, witness statements, video recordings, and expert conclusions. Second, the court thoroughly verified all circumstances of the case and refuted the defense’s arguments about the absence of a crime. Third, the imposed punishment was deemed proportionate to the severity of the committed offenses and the person of the convicted.
Court Decision: To leave the defense attorney’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 751/1680/21 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining the place of residence of a minor child after parents’ divorce.
Main Arguments of the Court: The best interests of the child are a priority.Here is the translation of the provided legal text:
1. We are resolving a dispute about the child’s place of residence.
2. The father arbitrarily took the child from the mother, hindered her communication with her son, which violates the child’s rights.
3. The mother has created appropriate living conditions for the child, has a stable income, and is positively characterized as a parent.
Court Decision: Determine the place of residence of the minor child with the mother and establish an adaptive period of meetings for gradual restoration of contact between the mother and child.
Case No. 916/4912/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Peasant Farm “VICTORIA” demands recovery of 38,775,051.78 UAH in damages from LLC “VITMARK AGRO” for non-fulfillment of the tomato supply contract.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. In a case of monetary recovery, the court may apply arrest of the defendant’s property and funds to ensure the possibility of executing the decision.
2. The defendant has an unconditional ability to dispose of their own funds, which creates a risk of complicating the execution of the court decision.
3. Imposing an arrest is a proportionate and adequate measure that does not completely block the defendant’s economic activity.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling on the arrest of property and funds of LLC “VITMARK AGRO” within the amount of the claim.
Case No. 145/1462/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint by the defender against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal refusing to open appellate proceedings in a criminal case about robbery (Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the appellate court improperly refused to open proceedings. The court believes that there are procedural grounds for reviewing the case and appointing a new court hearing. Moreover, the court decided to extend the preventive measure in the form of detention to ensure proper procedural behavior of the accused.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the previous ruling of the appellate court, and appoint a new hearing of the case, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 380/8738/23 dated 25/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the orders of the Main Directorate of the State Geocadaster in Lviv Oblast regarding conducting an inspection of a land plot and actions of officials regarding the preparation of an inspection report.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Challenging orders for conducting an inspection cannot be an independent subject of administrative dispute, as such orders do not directly violate the plaintiff’s rights.
2. The inspection report with damage calculations is not a decision that creates legal consequences for the plaintiff and therefore cannot be challenged.
3. Recognizing the actions of officials as unlawful will not lead to protection of the plaintiff’s rights, as there is no direct impact on their rights and obligations.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and close the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 911/804/20 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claiming a share in the authorized capital of a company and recognition of ownership rights.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff proved that their share in the authorized capital was unlawfully alienated without their will.
2. The court took into account previous court decisions that confirmed the unlawfulness of the alienation of the share.
3. When resolving the issue of court expenses, the court was guided by criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and necessity of incurred expenses.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the plaintiff’s application and recover 10,000 UAH in court expenses for legal assistance from the defendant instead of the claimed 61,000 UAH.
Case No. 160/26436/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dis…Recovery of Average Earnings for the Period of Forced Absence from Khlibodarivska Rural Territorial Community for the Period from 18.11.2020 to 02.11.2022.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court found that the previous instance courts prematurely closed the proceedings without examining the plaintiff’s motion to change the subject of the claim.
2. Procedural legislation does not define a clear order of consideration of motions, therefore the court should have first resolved the issue of changing the subject of the claim.
3. The lack of proper assessment of the motion to change the subject of the claim made it impossible to correctly determine the grounds for closing the proceedings in the case.
Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous instances and refer the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 160/23700/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the tax notification-decision of the Eastern Interregional State Tax Service, which reduced the amount of VAT budget refund for PJSC “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff’s business transactions are real, confirmed by primary documents and related to its core activities.
2. The controlling authority did not provide convincing evidence of the unreality of transactions and did not prove the intent of the taxpayer.
3. The lack of significant assets or resources of contractors cannot automatically indicate the unreality of business transactions.
Court Decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances and reject the cassation appeal of the tax authority.
Case No. 545/1187/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages from a housing construction cooperative for non-fulfillment of the contract terms regarding the transfer of an apartment to the plaintiff’s predecessor.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The appellate court incorrectly rejected the claim, believing that the plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protecting the right.
2. The court did not take into account that the predecessor had fully paid the share contribution and had the right to receive the apartment.
3. The plaintiff, as the son of the predecessor, has the right to claim inheritance of the first order regardless of the terms of the will.
Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for a new hearing to fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances.
Case No. 754/6498/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining the place of residence of a minor child and recovery of alimony after parents’ divorce.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The best interests of the child are a priority when resolving a dispute about the place of residence.
2. It was established that the mother does not actually live with the child, having transferred upbringing to the grandmother, while the father created appropriate living conditions for the son.
3. The established place of residence of the child is the father’s place of registration, where the child attends kindergarten and has a stable social environment.
Court Decision: Leave the child’s place of residence with the father and recover alimony from the mother for the son’s maintenance.
Case No. 521/21924/18 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling of the Odesa Appellate Court on releasing a person from serving a suspended sentence for grievous bodily harm.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court believes that the appellate court groundlessly released the convicted person from punishment, not fully taking into account the severity of the crime and its public danger. The court drew attention that recognition of guilt almost 8 years later cannot be considered sincere repentance, and partial compensation of damage is not a sufficient basis for release from actual punishment. Moreover, the appellate instance court established mitigating circumstances without re-examining the evidence.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the ruling of the Odesa Appellate Court and appointed a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 354/972/22 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding intentional murder committed by PERSON_7 against PERSON_9 while in a state of alcohol intoxication.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed all evidence in the case, including witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and investigative action protocols. It was established that PERSON_7 intentionally inflicted bodily injuries on the victim using a wooden log and a knife, which led to death. The court refuted the defense’s version about the absence of motive and the possibility of murder by another person, as the collected evidence unequivocally points to the guilt of the convicted person.
Court Decision: Uphold the verdict of the Yaremche City Court and the decision of the Appellate Court without changes, recognizing the imposed punishment of 8 years of imprisonment as fair.
Case No. 121/4838/13-k dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Robbery attack on two victims in the city of Yalta with the aim of seizing their property.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PERSON_6 committed a robbery attack on PERSON_8, applying life-threatening and health-endangering violence, specifically by striking with a leg and snatching a bag.
2. Testimonies of victims and witnesses fully confirm the fact of the attack and are consistent and coherent.
3. The forensic medical expert confirmed the presence of moderate bodily injuries on the victim, resulting from the attack.
Court Decision: Uphold the verdict of the Yalta City Court and the decision of the Appellate Court without changes, imposing a punishment of 9 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property for PERSON_6.
Case No. 991/7832/24 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Application of sanctions against PERSON_1 in accordance with paragraph 1-1 of part 1 of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the parties and concluded the legitimacy of the original decision. The panel of judges paid special attention to ensuring that sanctions are proportionate and substantiated. The court thoroughly examined all circumstances of the case, including the grounds for applying sanctions and their compliance with current legislation. Representatives of the Ministry of Justice provided convincing evidence of the necessity of introducing sanctions restrictions.
The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, thus supporting the position of applying sanctions against PERSON_1.
Case No. 398/638/22 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against a person accused of murder.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and established that the local court’s verdict is lawful and substantiated. Evidence of the defendant’s guilt was carefully examined and evaluated, with the court taking into account all case circumstances. The defense attorney attempted to challenge the decision due to alleged incompleteness of the court proceedings, however, the court found no grounds for overturning the verdict.
Court Decision: Uphold the decision of the Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court without changes, and reject the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 911/1510/18 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of inflation losses and 3% per annum under a natural gas supply agreement, the terms of which were modified by a settlement agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. A settlement agreement at the stage of executing a court decision is a transaction that changes the terms of a monetary obligation.
2. The court confirmed the previous legal position that inflation losses and 3% per annumHere is the translation of the provided text:
They are accrued only if the payment schedule established by the settlement agreement is violated.
3. The plaintiff did not prove the defendant’s violation of the payment schedule provided by the settlement agreement.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, the appellate court’s ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 727/6479/19 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings against three persons in connection with the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the criminal proceedings were entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations before March 16, 2018, and therefore are not subject to new procedural rules. The extension of pre-trial investigation terms was carried out by the First Deputy Prosecutor of Chernivtsi Region, which is lawful. The courts of previous instances groundlessly closed the proceedings, as they did not take into account the specifics of registration and extension of investigation terms for proceedings initiated before legislative changes.
Court Decision: Revoke the rulings of the district and appellate courts and assign a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Case No. 755/14759/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about theft of property from the “Epicenter K” hypermarket during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court discovered significant procedural violations in previous court decisions, in particular, the lower instance courts did not establish the exact value of stolen property for the episode of attempted theft, which is a mandatory condition for qualifying the act under Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Moreover, the court of first instance considered the case under a simplified procedure, which does not exempt it from the obligation to establish all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and assigned a new hearing in the court of first instance, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the defendant in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 9901/266/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging the Presidential Decree on applying sanctions to LLC “Truboplast” in the form of cancellation of subsoil use permit.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the parties and concluded that the imposed sanctions have a legitimate national security purpose. The President of Ukraine has a constitutional right to impose sanctions during a special period. The court established that the NSDC decision and the Presidential Decree were adopted within the powers and comply with the principle of proportionality of restrictions.
The Supreme Court decided to completely deny LLC “Truboplast” in satisfying the claim to cancel sanctions.
Case No. 703/3314/21 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: PrivatBank’s claim for eviction of the homeowner and her family members due to violation of mortgage agreement terms.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The disputed residential house was not purchased with credit funds, therefore eviction without providing alternative housing is illegal.
2. The bank did not provide evidence of credit agreement debt or obstruction of its rights.
3. Family members’ registration in the house does not violate the bank’s rights, as the owner was registered there before the mortgage agreement was concluded.
Court Decision: Leave PrivatBank’s claim without satisfaction, cassation appeal – without satisfaction, and previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 2а-2751/10/0870(СН/808/61/16) dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of VAT budget refund from the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of Private Joint Stock Company “Zaporizhzhia Confectionery Factory”.
2.Main arguments of the court:
– Tax legislation provides a clear mechanism for obtaining VAT budget refund by the taxpayer.
– IMPORTANT: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice, which did not allow recovering budget refund through court.
– The court recognized that non-refunding of VAT within the legally established terms converts such amount into budget debt.
– The European Court of Human Rights previously recognized taxpayers’ right to obtain budget refund as property right.
3. Court decision: Satisfy the company’s cassation appeal, cancel the appellate court’s resolution and uphold the first instance court’s decision on recovering 207,547.23 UAH of VAT budget refund.
Case No. 320/6987/22 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of Kyiv Regional Council’s inaction as unlawful regarding non-registration of property ownership.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established that the disputed real estate is municipal property of territorial communities of Kyiv region represented by Kyiv Regional Council
– Initial registration of ownership of this property for private persons was recognized as illegal in a previous court case
– Kyiv Regional Council acquired property ownership back in 2000 by decision of Bila Tserkva City Council
– The plaintiff cannot be considered a bona fide acquirer of property as they did not verify the legitimacy of its acquisition
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, i.e., confirm the legitimacy of previous court decisions on rejecting the claim.
Case No. 200/3437/23 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ decision to refuse granting combatant status to a police officer.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff did not provide official documents that would unequivocally confirm their direct participation in the anti-terrorist operation in 2014.
– The MIA commission rightfully refused to grant status due to lack of sufficient evidence of participation in the ATO.
– The mere fact of working in law enforcement agencies in the ATO zone is insufficient to obtain combatant status.
3. Court decision: Leave the appellate court’s decision unchanged, i.e., reject the plaintiff’s claim for granting combatant status.
Case No. 540/352/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office’s inaction as unlawful regarding non-payment of full salary to a prosecutor.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Constitutional Court’s decision on the unconstitutionality of certain law provisions cannot automatically serve as a basis for reviewing a court decision that rejected the claim.
2. A court decision rejecting the claim is not subject to compulsory execution and therefore cannot be reviewed under exceptional circumstances.
3. The Constitutional Court’s decision applies only to legal relations that arose after its adoption or continue to exist after that.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate administrative court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 489/2748/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of double deposit amount and penalty sanctions for non-fulfillment of a preliminary real estate purchase agreement.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position that the transferred amount of 4 million hryvnias is an advance, not a deposit, and therefore subject to simple return. The court emphasized that obligations under the preliminary agreement are terminated if the main agreement is not concluded within the specified time, and the party loses the right to recover penalty sanctions.
