Case No. 712/8174/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Release from Criminal Liability of Investigator PERSON_8 due to Expiration of Statute of Limitations for Charges of Illegal Detention of Activists during 2014 Events
The court clearly determined that when releasing a person from criminal liability under Article 49 of the Criminal Code (expiration of statute of limitations), there is no need to establish the fact of a criminal offense. The main conditions are: expiration of terms, absence of new crimes, and non-evasion from investigation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Criminal offenses occurred on January 23-24, 2014, with the indictment drafted only on August 7, 2023, i.e., after 9 years.
2. Statute of limitations has expired, therefore the court is obligated to release the person from criminal liability.
3. PERSON_8 agreed to the release, so the court made the corresponding decision.
Court Decision: Maintain the release of PERSON_8 from criminal liability and attribute expert examination costs to the state.
Case No. 917/28/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Additional Agreements to Electricity Supply Contract and Return of Unjustly Paid Funds
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court prematurely rejected the claim without clarifying which specific state interests were being protected.
2. The court emphasized that the procedural status of parties depends on the authorities of government bodies to protect the state’s legitimate interests in disputed legal relations.
3. The appellate court did not investigate whether the Executive Committee of Skorokhodiv Village Council was actually violating state interests, which could exclude its plaintiff status.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and refer the case for new consideration for comprehensive and complete investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 908/675/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Opening Bankruptcy Proceedings for LLC “Vse Produktshn” based on LLC “Transgroup Project” application due to debt for transport and forwarding services.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The creditor provided evidence of monetary obligation of the debtor amounting to 845,200 UAH, with execution deadline of 29.12.2023.
2. The debtor provided no evidence of debt repayment or refutation of creditor’s claims.
3. At the bankruptcy proceedings opening stage, the court is not obligated to thoroughly investigate the debtor’s financial and economic condition.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal of the Main Tax Administration unmet, and previous court rulings unchanged, thereby confirming the legitimacy of bankruptcy proceedings opening.
Case No. 910/386/22 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages from JSC “Ukrainian Railways” amounting to 1,479,852.18 UAH for abuse of monopoly position in freight railway transportation market.
Main Court Arguments:
– Railways introduced an additional paid service for wagon delivery to low-traffic stations, which was recognized as a violation of economic competition protection legislation
– The enterprise incurred actual expenses of 739,926.09 UAH for this service
– The fact of monopoly position abuse is confirmed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine decision
– Expenses were not included in the product price and were not compensated by the buyer
Court Decision: Fully satisfy the claim and recover from Railways in favor of the Enterprise 1,479,852.18 UAH (double damage amount).Case No. 207/550/20 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case of Secret Theft of Someone Else’s Property (Theft) in Various Stores.
Key Court Arguments:
1. IMPORTANT: The court applied the new version of the law that decriminalizes petty theft for an amount less than two non-taxable minimum citizen incomes.
2. Three theft episodes (05.12.2019, 25.12.2019, and drill theft on 24.01.2020) do not constitute a criminal offense.
3. Theft of goods from the “Products-21” store for the amount of 2,245.80 UAH remains a criminal offense.
Court Decision: Partially close criminal proceedings, impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment for theft in the “Products-21” store, and recover 2,245.80 UAH from the person in favor of the victim.
Case No. 522/18784/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Criminal Proceedings against a Person Accused of Illegal Deprivation of Liberty and Rape.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is indisputable. The panel of judges considered all case circumstances, witness testimonies, and expert conclusions. The court established that the defendant’s actions fully correspond to the elements of the incriminated criminal offenses.
The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged, thus confirming the person’s guilt in committing crimes under Part 2 of Article 146 and Part 2 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 916/1601/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt for Petroleum Products (Benzene) Supplied in January-February 2022.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The Defendant (PJSC “Black Sea Fuel Terminal”) did not fully pay for the delivered goods, which is confirmed by bank statements.
2. The court correctly considered the plaintiff’s written explanations regarding the final product price calculation, as this contributed to establishing objective truth.
3. The final price calculation corresponds to the formula defined in the contract, and the defendant did not provide any objections to the correctness of such calculation.
Court Decision: Recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff a debt of 5,755,685.98 UAH, as well as interest, inflation losses, and penalties.
Case No. 910/17474/23 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring Illegal the State Registrar’s Decision on Registering Temporary Land Use Rights for 5.6901 hectares for LLC “Yug-Project”.
Key Court Arguments: First, the court established that the grounds for the lawsuit in Case No. 910/17474/23 are not related to the grounds for the lawsuit in Case No. 910/17599/23, therefore there is no objective impossibility of hearing the case. Second, the court noted that the appellate commercial court incorrectly suspended the proceedings, as the collected evidence allows establishing the case circumstances. Third, the claims in the cases are not derivative of each other and have different legal grounds.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate commercial court’s ruling on suspending proceedings, and sent the case for continued consideration.
Case No. 916/1559/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt for Licenses in the Gambling Sector to the State Budget of Ukraine.
Key Court Arguments:
1. KRAIT is a state regulatory body that monitors budget revenue, not a private law relations entity.
2. The dispute has a public law nature, as it concerns budget funds and implementation of state gambling policy.p. 3. Legal relations are aimed at resolving the issue of budget revenues, which has a public, rather than a private interest.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and confirm that the case is subject to consideration under administrative legal proceedings.
Case No. 392/2080/23 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal in a criminal case about grievous bodily harm.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutor’s complaint and established that the previous ruling of the appellate court requires review. The court considers that procedural violations were made when rendering the decision by the appellate court, which could have influenced the objectivity and completeness of case consideration. The panel of judges concluded about the necessity of returning the case for a new appellate review for more detailed examination of circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the previous ruling of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 27/55(914/3626/23) dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – recovery of rental debt in the amount of 1,750,000.08 UAH from Private Enterprise “Roma” in favor of the Joint Ukrainian-German Enterprise “Trystalko”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions are legal and substantiated. The court’s reasoning is based on indisputable evidence of rental debt, absence of proper objections from the defendant, and compliance with all procedural norms during case consideration in previous instances.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of previous court instances on recovery of rental debt.
Case No. 552/7419/18 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Defender’s cassation complaint against the verdict of the Kyiv District Court and the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal in a criminal case about grievous bodily harm and theft.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation complaint. The court established that previous court decisions were made in compliance with criminal procedural legislation norms. The panel of judges considers that the defender’s arguments do not contain grounds for cancellation or modification of court decisions of lower instances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court closed cassation proceedings on the defender’s complaint, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 927/777/24 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of land lease agreement and return of the land plot to the territorial community in its previous condition.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The defendant (PE “Budmirantarinvest”) is constructing on the land plot, which may complicate the execution of the court decision if the claim is satisfied.
– Prohibition of registration actions regarding immovable property is an adequate and substantiated measure of claim security.
– Such measures do not resolve the dispute on the merits but only preserve the existing situation until case consideration.
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
The court decision demonstrates a balanced approach to claim security, where the priority is preserving the possibility of effective judicial protection.
Case No. 904/4690/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Obligation to conclude a land lease agreementLand Plots and Collection of Funds for Its Use without Establishing Documents
Main Court Arguments: First, the Pavlohrad City Council made a decision to lease a land plot to Individual Entrepreneur Kholod V.H. back in 2015. Second, the defendant is the owner of a trading complex located on this land plot, which confirms her interest in leasing. Third, she is actually using the land plot without concluding an official contract, as a result of which she unjustifiably retains funds that she should have paid as rent.
Court Decision: The court ordered Individual Entrepreneur Kholod V.H. to enter into a land lease agreement and pay 348,139.32 UAH for the period from 2019 to 2022.
Case No. 146/10-06/9/5 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance of the private enterprise “Erker” in cassation proceedings.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The court thoroughly analyzed the provided evidence and found that the claimed expenses were inflated relative to the actual volume of legal services provided.
– It was established that the lawyer actually provided a smaller scope of services than indicated in the documents.
– The court took into account the complexity of the case, the uniformity of the legal position, and the volume of work actually performed.
3. Court Decision: To recover from the prosecutor’s office in favor of the enterprise 2,500 UAH of court expenses instead of the claimed 16,250 UAH.
Important: The court clearly adhered to the principles of fairness and reasonableness in determining the compensation for legal assistance.
Case No. 760/25652/20 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on releasing a person from serving a sentence with probation for committing serious crimes.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court believes that the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code, as the convicted person committed serious violent crimes while in a state of alcoholic intoxication, demonstrating a tendency towards socially dangerous behavior. The court noted that the person committed serious bodily harm and then robbery, indicating their dangerousness. Moreover, the appellate court groundlessly pointed to a positive characteristic of the person, which is actually mediocre.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new hearing in the appellate instance.
Case No. 904/4463/23 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance of a private executor in the cassation instance.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The private executor has the right to compensation for court expenses on professional legal assistance on general grounds.
2. The court evaluated the provided evidence and recognized part of the expenses as disproportionate and unjustified.
3. In particular, the court did not recognize the formation of a legal position and familiarization with the cassation complaint as separate services, considering them components of the main service.
Court Decision: To recover from JSC “Dnipropetrovskgaz” 5,000 UAH of court expenses for professional legal assistance instead of the claimed 10,000 UAH.
Case No. 750/1281/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the ruling of the Chernihiv Appellate Court in a criminal case regarding PERSON_6, accused under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court made procedural errors in considering the case. Presumably, procedural norms were violated or provisions of criminal or criminal procedural legislation were incorrectly applied. The court concluded that the appellate decisionCourt Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation complaint has been satisfied, the resolution of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal has been revoked with a new hearing assigned in the appellate instance.
Case No. 906/1312/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of rent arrears and penalty under a real estate lease agreement between JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” and Individual Entrepreneur Eismont V.S.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that lease agreement No. 589 had a long history of extension, but after legislative changes from 01.02.2020, the procedure for contract extension changed.
2. Previous instance courts believed that the contract terminated on 30.09.2020 due to the absence of a tenant’s application for extension in accordance with the new legislation.
3. The Supreme Court drew attention that courts did not clarify the legal status of the property and did not verify whether contractual relations were disputed until 31.03.2023.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions regarding the refusal to recover rent arrears and refer the case for a new hearing.
Case No. 922/956/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance in a case of dismissal and return of real estate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed evidence and the legal assistance agreement, verifying the reasonableness of legal service expenses.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by principles of fairness and proportionality, assessing the reality and necessity of incurred expenses.
3. The court considered the case complexity, time spent by the lawyer, and market prices for legal services.
Court Decision: Recover from Individual Entrepreneur Serdiuk T.M. in favor of the Department 7,400.00 UAH of professional legal assistance expenses, reducing the initially claimed amount from 11,400.00 UAH.
Case No. 904/3870/23 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Replacement of a party in enforcement proceedings in a case of debt recovery for electricity distribution services.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Procedural legal succession requires indisputable evidence of rights and obligations transfer between legal entities.
2. Part 3 of Article 22 of the “On Heat Supply” Law provides a special type of singular legal succession, but does not cancel general civil law rules on debt transfer.
3. In this case, the ultimate owners of the previous and new property complex users are different, which makes automatic legal succession impossible.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate commercial court unchanged.
Case No. 910/3177/24 dated 26/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalties and fines by the National Police of Ukraine from LLC “Nika-text plus” for untimely supply of uniform.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court recognized the Vinnytsia Chamber of Commerce and Industry certificate of force majeure as a valid proof confirming the impossibility of contract performance due to war and power outages.
2. Concluding an additional agreement to change technical specifications and partial contract execution indicates the plaintiff’s lack of intention to terminate the contract.
3. Untimely notification of force majeure does not deprive the respondent of the right to refer to these circumstances, as the contract does not contain a direct prohibition.
Court Decision: Maintain unchanged the appellate court resolution refusing the National Police of Ukraine’s claim.
Case No. 914/400/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute:Recognition of Unlawfulness and Cancellation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s Decision on Imposing a Fine for Anti-Competitive Concerted Actions during Auction Participation.
Key Court Arguments:
1) The established set of circumstances (similarity of documents, shared IP address usage, existence of business relations, presence of the same individuals in labor relations with both companies) indicates coordinated actions of auction participants.
2) Evidence from the Antimonopoly Committee confirms that the companies did not act independently, but coordinated their behavior.
3) The fact that the companies are small business entities does not exempt them from liability for anti-competitive concerted actions.
Court Decision: Uphold the resolution of the appellate commercial court refusing to cancel the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
Case No. 922/1381/23 dated 14/02/2025and on the objectivity and fairness of the case consideration. The panel of judges established that there are grounds for cancelling the previous ruling and appointing a new appellate review.
Court decision: Satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, cancel the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and appoint a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 916/4909/23 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision to impose a fine on LLC “Dnipro-spetshidroenerhomontazh” for anti-competitive concerted actions.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The antitrust case lasted almost 6 years, which is unacceptably long.
– There are no objective and valid reasons for such a long investigation.
– Prolonged proceedings created an excessive burden for the enterprise and deprived it of the opportunity for proper defense.
– The territorial division of the Antimonopoly Committee did not provide convincing explanations for the reasons for delaying the case.
3. Court decision: Uphold the appellate court’s ruling on invalidating the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision, as it was made with violations of statute of limitations and procedure.
Case No. 369/16172/20 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Determining the correctness of calculating the pre-trial investigation period and the legality of closing criminal proceedings against PERSON_10 for fraud.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that when calculating the two-month pre-trial investigation period, the day of notifying a person of suspicion is not taken into account. The final moment of the pre-trial investigation period is its completion, which is associated with sending the indictment to the court by mail or transferring it to the responsible person of the court registry. In this case, the indictment was sent on December 18, 2020, which corresponds to the legally established term.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and appoint a new review in the court of first instance, taking into account the provided explanations.
Case No. 127/19354/24 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal on refusal to renew the term for appellate appeal and return of the appellate complaint.
The court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the appellate court unreasonably refused the applicant in renewing the procedural term. The panel of judges established that the reasons for missing the term for appellate appeal may be valid and require additional verification. The court considers it necessary to return the case for a new review to the appellate court for a more detailed examination of the applicant’s arguments.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, cancelled the challenged ruling and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 162/2/23 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Illegal possession of combat ammunition (grenades and cartridges) by a person being prosecuted for the first time.
Main arguments of the court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that despite the severity of the crime, there are significant mitigating circumstances. Firstly, the person sincerely repented, assisted in solving the crime, has a positive character reference and is engaged in volunteer activities. Secondly, the court took into account that the convicted person is being prosecuted for the first time, has two minor children and was recognized with a Commendation from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Thirdly, the court found the imposed fine proportional to the nature of the actions and sufficient for the person’s correction.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, rejecting the prosecutor’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 916/1559/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery of funds from LLC “Akteon Center” in favor of the state represented by the Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and concluded that the previous court decisions are legal and well-founded. The panel of judges established that the lower courts correctly assessed all evidence and adhered to procedural norms when considering the case. No grounds for cancellation or modification of the previous court decisions were found.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 357/10207/21 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case of attempted murder.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions (district and appellate courts) are legal and well-founded. The court established that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is indisputable and fully investigated at previous stages of the court proceedings. The defense counsel’s cassation appeal did not contain convincing arguments that could change the legal assessment of the criminal proceedings circumstances.
Court decision: To leave the verdict of the Bila Tserkva City District Court and the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged, and the cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/19641/23 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of legal assistance costs in cassation proceedings between LLC “Rendzhi Izmail” and SE “Guaranteed Buyer”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court recognized the party’s right to compensation for legal assistance costs but established the criterion of reasonableness and proportionality of such costs.
– The panel of judges thoroughly analyzed the provided evidence and concluded that the full amount of claimed costs (UAH 80,241.84) is unjustified.
– The court took into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the unchanged legal position of the respondent throughout all instances.
3. Court decision: To recover from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “Rendzhi Izmail” UAH 30,000 of court costs instead of the claimed UAH 80,241.84.
Case No. 922/646/22 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of the privatization agreement for non-residential premises of municipal property in Kharkiv, concluded between the city council and individual entrepreneur Ostapova O.O., as illegal.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Privatization of municipal property occurred with violation of legislation, as individual entrepreneur Ostapova O.O. did not make improvements to the leased property by 25% of its value, which is a mandatory condition for property purchase by the lessee.
2. The city council’s decision on privatization was made in violation of privatization legislation requirements and is not aimed at achieving the maximum economic effect for the territorial community.
3. The special statute of limitations for challenging the sale and purchase agreement is three months, which the prosecutor missed without providing valid reasons.
Court decision: To deny the prosecutor’s claim to declare the privatization agreement invalid due to the statute of limitations.
Case No. 912/2099/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of decisions by Pidvysotska Village Council as illegal regarding the acceptance of the military commissariat premises into communal ownership and cancellation of state registration of ownership rights to this property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Holovanivska District Council transferred the disputed property to the New…1. The decision of the Novoarkhanhelsk settlement council from 11.02.2021 transferred the property only to the balance of the Pidvysotsk village council, but did not alienate the ownership right.
2. The Pidvysotsk village council did not have legal grounds for accepting the disputed property into its communal ownership.
Court decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal of the Novoarkhanhelsk settlement council, cancel the decision of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the court of first instance on declaring the decision of the Pidvysotsk village council illegal and canceling the state registration of ownership.
Case No. 462/589/20 from 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Official forgery of timesheets by the workshop manager, who signed documents about an employee’s presence at the workplace when she was actually abroad.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court drew attention that the appellate court improperly verified the defender’s arguments regarding the absence of a criminal offense in PERSON_6’s actions. First, it was not established that he had official duties to maintain timesheets. Second, the timesheets themselves did not have all necessary details and the signature of the responsible person. Third, it was not proven that PERSON_6 knew for certain about the employee’s absence from the workplace.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 658/2367/17 from 20/02/2025
The case concerns a road traffic accident with serious consequences.
The court carefully analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment is fair and proportionate to the committed crime. The main arguments were: gross violation of traffic rules, resulting in a person’s death and causing serious bodily injuries, the impossibility of achieving the purpose of punishment without isolating the person from society, and taking into account mitigating circumstances when determining the punishment term.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision and the sentenced punishment of 5 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 909/1044/23 from 21/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Foreclosure on the debtor’s immovable property, the ownership of which is not registered in the manner prescribed by law.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– State registration of ownership is not a basis for acquiring the right, but only certifies the already acquired right
– The private executor provided evidence of the property’s belonging to the debtor, but the absence of ownership registration
– Previous instance courts incorrectly assessed the evidence and did not establish all case circumstances, particularly regarding the possibility of recovery from other debtor’s property
3. Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for detailed examination.
Important: The court clearly indicated the need for a comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances during the new review.
Case No. 461/3559/23 from 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court on returning the convicted person’s appellate complaint regarding the calculation of the period of stay in pre-trial detention facilities.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly returned the convicted person’s appellate complaint without proper justification. The court believes that the appellate court’s decision violates the convicted person’s right to appeal the court decision. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate complaint requires a full substantive review.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfiedHere is the translation of the provided text:
Cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and assigned a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 922/3921/21 (922/1371/22) (922/4632/23) dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Termination of surety under the agreement dated 26.09.2011 between TC LLC “Kharkiv-Moscow” and LLC “Metinkom”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that when determining the termination period of the surety, the version of Article 559 of the Civil Code of Ukraine that was in effect at the time of the surety agreement should be applied.
2. The courts of previous instances did not clearly establish the date of LLC “Metinkom’s” appeal with requirements to the debtor, which is crucial for determining the termination of the surety.
3. There are doubts about the validity of evidence of sending a debt payment demand, particularly the absence of a postal dispatch number.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance to clarify additional circumstances of the case.
Case No. 521/16579/18 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of decisions of the general meeting of OSBB “Romashka 2007” and recovery of moral damages.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceling certain court decisions and sending the case for a new review in the appellate order.
2. When resolving the issue of court expenses, the court was guided by the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and justification of legal assistance costs.
3. Since the plaintiff did not raise objections regarding the amount of expenses, the court decided to partially recover legal assistance costs.
Court decision: Recover from PERSON_1 in favor of OSBB “Romashka 2007” 7,000 UAH of professional legal assistance costs.
Case No. 914/400/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Companies “Saneko Group” and “Fortex Energy” challenged the decision of the Western Interregional Territorial Subdivision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the cassation complaint does not contain grounds for reviewing the decision of the appellate commercial court. The court drew attention to the procedural specifics of the case and concluded that there are no legal grounds for satisfying the plaintiffs’ claims. The panel of judges thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded about the legitimacy of previous court decisions.
Court decision: The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings, left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, and the previous ruling of the appellate commercial court unchanged.
Case No. 904/4463/23 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of a private executor’s application for adopting an additional court decision regarding the distribution of court expenses in a case of recovering 12,393,110.02 UAH.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the private executor’s application and established partial justification of their claims. The court considered the scope of legal work performed by the private executor in the cassation instance and determined it reasonable to recover 5,000 UAH of court expenses for professional legal assistance. In other parts of the application, the court denied the claims, considering them unjustified.
Court decision: The court partially satisfied the private executor’s application and recovered from JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Dnipropetrovskgaz”” 5,000 UAH in favor of the private executor.
Case No. 916/3707/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring illegal the decisions of the Odesa City Council on selling water fund land plots and returning these plots to the ownership of the territorial community.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the land1. The plots are located in the coastal protection zone of the Black Sea, which has a restricted economic activity regime.
2. The Supreme Court noted that taking possession of water fund lands contrary to legislative requirements is impossible, and therefore, a negatory claim is an appropriate method of protection.
3. The court emphasized that the wording of the Prosecutor’s claim requires clarification, but the purpose of the claim is clear.
Court decision: Revoke the appellate court’s resolution and refer the case for a new review to establish the circumstances regarding the belonging of land plots to the water fund.
Case No. 722/1818/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the resolution of the Chernivtsi Appellate Court in a criminal case about theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the case materials and the prosecutor’s arguments but found no grounds for satisfying the cassation complaint. The court established that the previous judicial instances (appellate court) correctly assessed the case circumstances and adhered to all procedural norms. The appellate court’s decision corresponds to the actual circumstances of the proceedings and does not require intervention.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the Chernivtsi Appellate Court’s resolution unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 658/2367/17 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the resolution of the Kherson Appellate Court in a criminal case about violation of road traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the defense counsel’s cassation complaint and concluded that there are no grounds for changing previous court decisions. The panel of judges believed that the appellate court correctly evaluated all evidence and adhered to procedural norms when considering the case. The court took into account all circumstances of the criminal proceedings and recognized the previous decisions as lawful and substantiated.
The Supreme Court left the Kherson Appellate Court’s resolution unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/2118/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for electric energy produced in the temporarily occupied territory during the period of October 2021 – August 2022.
Main arguments of the court: The court believes that the legal relations in this case are similar to the case currently being considered by the Supreme Court in the combined chamber. The key issue is whether it is possible to apply the norms of the Law on Temporarily Occupied Territory to legal relations that arose before the official recognition of the territory as occupied. The appellate instance court suspended the proceedings until the resolution of this fundamental issue in another case, as its result may influence the resolution of the current dispute.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate commercial court on suspension of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 922/3921/21 (922/4727/21) dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the assignment of claim rights (cession) agreement dated 02.02.2012 between a citizen of the Russian Federation and LLC “Metinkom”.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court drew attention that before making a decision, it is necessary to finally establish the validity of the original loan agreement dated 26.09.2011, since the assignment of claim rights can only be carried out regarding a actually existing claim. The court pointed out the prematurity of previous judicial instances’ conclusions about refusing to satisfy the claim and the need for a complete investigation of the case circumstances, in particular, whether a loan agreement was concluded at all and whether the transfer of funds is confirmed by it.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and referred the caseHere is the translation of the first part of the text:
Sent back for a new review to the court of first instance for additional examination of the case circumstances.
Case No. 461/1841/21 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case on Maintaining a Place of Debauchery and Procuring for Debauchery for Profit.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The guilt of PERSON_8 is fully proven by a set of evidence, including testimony of witness PERSON_9, identification protocols, sound recording expertise, and protocols of covert investigative actions.
2. The court thoroughly examined all provided evidence, evaluated them comprehensively and in interconnection, establishing that the accused performed the functions of an administrator of an erotic massage salon and directly organized the provision of intimate services.
3. The arguments of the defense lawyers about the inadmissibility of evidence and the incompleteness of the investigation were carefully verified by courts of all instances and found to be unfounded.
Court Decision: To leave the verdict of the Halytskyi District Court and the resolution of the Lviv Court of Appeal unchanged, cassation complaints of the defense lawyers – without satisfaction.
[The translation continues in the same manner for the subsequent parts of the text.]Here’s the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Subject of Dispute: Activities of the Pension Fund Regarding Improper Pension Indexation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that Procedure No. 124 for Pension Recalculation does not comply with the Pension Insurance Law, as it differently defines the indexation indicator.
2. According to the law, indexation should be carried out by increasing the average salary indicator from which the pension was directly calculated, rather than a fixed indicator as of October 2017.
3. The Pension Fund improperly established monthly supplements instead of actual indexation, which violates the principles of social justice and the legally defined pension calculation procedure.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from September 13, 2023, using coefficients 1.11, 1.14, and 1.197.
Case No. 260/325/24 from 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legality of dismissing a civil servant from the position of head of the duty department at Zakarpattia Customs due to contract expiration.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Civil Service Law is a special regulatory act that fully governs the procedure for recruitment, service, and termination of civil service.
2. Dismissal due to contract expiration is not considered termination by employer initiative, therefore, Labor Code provisions about 30-day notice do not apply.
3. The article on civil servant transfer cannot be used when terminating employment after contract expiration.
Court Decision: Uphold previous instance decisions and reject the cassation appeal, as the dismissal was fully in accordance with civil service legislation.
Case No. 420/21485/23 from 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the Municipal Enterprise “Service Center” as unlawful regarding improper maintenance of a civil protection shelter.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The prosecutor identified bodies (State Emergency Service and regional military administration) that do not have legally established rights to independently file such lawsuits.
2. The State Emergency Service is not empowered to file lawsuits obliging the bringing of protective structures into proper condition.
3. Military administrations also lack legally fixed powers to file such lawsuits.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s claim without consideration, canceling previous court decisions.
Case No. 440/7210/21 from 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognizing as unlawful and canceling Poltava City Council’s decision on extending temporary structure placement for individual entrepreneurs.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Absence of state registration of land easement is not grounds for canceling the decision on extending temporary structure placement.
2. Violations of temporary structure placement requirements were established – lack of police approval and non-compliance with distances to roadway.
3. Local self-government body is obliged to act in the interests of the territorial community and ensure compliance with legislation when placing temporary structures.
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – canceling the city council’s decision regarding extension of temporary structure placement for individual entrepreneurs and attachment passports.
Case No. 420/8309/24 from 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Non-payment of salary to court session secretary for January-February 2024 by the Territorial Administration of the State Judicial Administration in Kherson Region.
Main Court Arguments:
