Here is the translation of the legal texts:
Case No. 914/1334/22 dated 18/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Ryasne-Ruska Village Council’s decision to transfer a land plot into ownership of the garage construction cooperative “Pickup”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The appellate court considers that the prosecutor’s chosen method of protection (invalidation of the decision) is ineffective, as it will not lead to restoration of the territorial community’s rights.
– Since the land plot is already registered in the cooperative’s ownership, a more appropriate method of protection would be a vindication claim for property recovery.
– Cancellation of the local self-government body’s decision in itself will not return the land plot to the territorial community.
3. Court Decision: To leave the appellate court’s resolution unchanged, to reject the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
The court decision demonstrates a clear position regarding the need to choose an effective method of rights protection, especially in land disputes.
Case No. 372/4284/23 dated 26/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring information about the alleged extortion of 100,000 dollars by the plaintiff, posted by the defendant on Facebook, as unreliable.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the need to distinguish between facts and value judgments
– It was emphasized that for public figures (deputies), the boundaries of criticism are broader
– The court pointed out the lack of indisputable evidence of the information’s reliability from the defendant’s side
– Emphasis was placed on the importance of maintaining a balance between freedom of expression and protection of an individual’s reputation
3. Court Decision: The Cassation Court cancelled previous court decisions and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for additional examination of the circumstances.
The court essentially deviated from previous practice regarding the burden of proof in reputation protection cases.
Case No. 289/245/23 dated 26/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a state executor regarding the imposition of a fine in enforcement proceedings about returning a land plot and its boundaries.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– A case challenging the state executor’s resolution on imposing a fine is subject to consideration under administrative proceedings, not civil.
– The powers of lawyer Boiko V.V. are confirmed by a certificate of the right to practice law, so there are no grounds to doubt his representative status.
– Previous instance courts incorrectly considered the case under civil proceedings, as such disputes belong to administrative jurisdiction.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled previous instance decisions regarding the complaint review and closed the proceedings, explaining to the applicant the right to apply to an administrative court.
Case No. 757/32339/18-ц dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of funds from JSC CB “PrivatBank” under bank deposit agreements and accrued interest.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff submitted applications for terminating deposit agreements on May 18, 2018, which corresponds to the agreement conditions and civil legislation.
2. The bank did not return the funds to the depositor after terminating the agreements, which is a violation of obligations.
3. Since the agreements were terminated, penalty accrual under the Consumer Rights Protection Law stops, but interest under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine for monetary obligation delay applies.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the previous instances’ decision on recovering funds from JSC CB “PrivatBank” in favor of the plaintiff under deposit agreements with 3% annual interest accrual.Case No. 686/12159/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dismissal of an employee from the position of Head of the Legal Department of the Executive Directorate of the Social Insurance Fund of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi Oblast in connection with reorganization.
Main Court Arguments: The court established that as a result of the reorganization of the Social Insurance Fund by merging with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, the dispute has a public law nature. Since the plaintiff essentially claims reinstatement in a government body position, such a dispute is subject to consideration under administrative proceedings, not civil proceedings. The appellate court correctly closed the proceedings and explained to the plaintiff the procedure for appealing to an administrative court.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the resolution of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court – unchanged.
Case No. 947/38673/20 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: PERSON_1’s lawsuit against the State Enterprise “Administration of Seaports of Ukraine” on recognizing actions regarding refusal to appoint as Deputy Chairman for Port Infrastructure Development as illegal.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Appointment to the Deputy Chairman position requires approval from the Ministry of Infrastructure, which was obtained for another candidate.
2. No causal relationship exists between the plaintiff’s status as a whistleblower and the refusal to appoint to the position.
3. The National Agency for Prevention of Corruption did not establish violations of the plaintiff’s rights as a whistleblower.
4. The employer has the right to make personnel decisions within the organizational structure of the enterprise.
Court Decision: Reject PERSON_1’s lawsuit on recognizing SE “AMPU” actions as illegal and obliging to conclude an employment contract for the Deputy Chairman position.
Case No. 159/2787/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Lawsuit on recognizing actions of blocking access to electronic medical card as unlawful and compensation for moral damages.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The electronic healthcare system is not a medical service, so the plaintiff is not exempt from court fee payment as a consumer.
2. The plaintiff did not pay the court fee for the appeal in the established amount of 605.60 UAH, as a result of which the appellate court returned the complaint.
3. The plaintiff’s references to previous court decisions are unfounded, as they relate to other legal relationships.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling – unchanged, recovering court fee of 605.60 UAH from the plaintiff.
Case No. 686/4601/23 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Lawsuit for moral damages compensation of 7 trillion hryvnias for non-execution of a court decision regarding photo insertion in a passport.
Main Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff already received 10,510 hryvnias compensation for non-execution of a court decision earlier
– Did not provide proper evidence of moral damage specifically during the period from February 13 to 20, 2023
– Legislation does not provide for multiple compensation of moral damages for the same non-execution of a decision
– No unequivocal causal relationship exists between non-execution of the decision and moral damage
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 753/23291/21 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the bank’s refusal to restructure credit debt as improper.
Main Court Arguments:
– The bank refused restructuring due to lack of documents about family compositionHere is the translation of the text into English:
and income, but did not send an official request for the provision of these documents.
– The court established that the appellate court violated procedural norms by considering the case without proper notification of the plaintiff and their representative.
– IMPORTANT: The court recognized that a telephone message and electronic notification are not an appropriate method of notifying participants in the court proceedings.
3. Court decision: Revoke the appellate court’s resolution and send the case for a new review.
The key thesis of the decision is that observing a person’s right to be heard in court is a fundamental principle of judicial proceedings.
Case No. 01/08/2017 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Cancellation of the arbitration court’s decision on recovering damages of 1,424,822.10 UAH from OSBB “Cheremushky-2017” in favor of PERSON_2.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Storage agreements containing an arbitration clause were declared invalid by the court, as the OSBB representative did not have real authority to conclude them.
2. The OSBB board chairman was on leave for an extended period and was not informed about the case review in the arbitration court.
3. The Constitutional Court previously declared unconstitutional the norms that limited the restoration of terms for appealing arbitration court decisions.
Court decision: Uphold the Kharkiv Appellate Court’s rulings on restoring the term and canceling the arbitration court’s decision.
Case No. 560/8899/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the first instance court’s rulings on recognizing judge recusal applications as an abuse of procedural rights.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The right to appeal is a constitutional guarantee of judicial protection
– The appellate court incorrectly refused to open appellate proceedings without clarifying the essence of the challenged rulings
– Establishing restrictions on appeal must be reasonable and not violate a person’s right to judicial protection
3. Court decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court’s rulings, and send the case for a new review.
Important: The Supreme Court consistently upholds the principle of ensuring a person’s right to appeal court decisions.
Case No. 686/811/22 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim to cancel the state registration of a land plot and terminate ownership due to allegedly incorrect plot boundary formation.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the respondent’s land plot does not overlap with the plaintiff’s plot, as evidenced by the land and technical expertise. The plaintiff did not provide appropriate evidence of rights violation during the respondent’s land plot registration. The court emphasized that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the plaintiff did not prove the fact of rights violation.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/5996/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine’s order on canceling the registration action regarding the limited liability company “Festland”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The dispute is related to the creation, activity, and management of a legal entity, and therefore subject to consideration under economic court proceedings.
2. The Ministry of Justice’s order can be challenged in court, and the ministry itself, as the authority that made the decision, must respond to such a claim.
3. The dispute is not a public law dispute, as the Ministry of Justice did not have direct public law relations with the plaintiff when issuing the challenged order.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate economic court’s resolutionCase No. 925/365/24 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the commission’s decision on charging for unaccounted electricity due to unauthorized connection as illegal.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The fact of unauthorized connection to the electrical network in violation of the accounting scheme has not been refuted by the plaintiff.
2. The previous commission decision was canceled due to technical calculation errors, but not due to refutation of the violation.
3. The presence of defects in the violation report does not cancel the violation itself if there is other evidence.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the local economic court’s decision to reject the individual entrepreneur Kobyletska’s claim.
Important: The court confirmed the legitimacy of re-examining the violation report if the violation has not been refuted.
Case No. 920/464/24 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a natural gas supply agreement for the amount of 384,411,008.49 UAH and return of counterclaim.
Main Court Arguments: First, the respondent missed the 15-day period set by the court for filing a counterclaim by 58 days. Second, the court did not recognize the reasons for missing the deadline as valid, including references to settlement negotiations and air raid alerts. Third, the court emphasized that process participants must independently ensure compliance with procedural deadlines.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and previous court rulings unchanged.
Case No. 910/3688/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of a service procurement contract between LLC “Bramante” and LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” due to significant change of circumstances resulting from full-scale war.
Main Court Arguments:
The Supreme Court indicated that previous instance courts prematurely satisfied the claim for contract termination. The court noted that at the time of contract signing, martial law had already been in effect for 4 months, so parties could have anticipated economic consequences. Moreover, currency exchange rate fluctuations and inflationary processes are ordinary commercial risks of entrepreneurial activity, not grounds for contract termination.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court instance rulings and refer the case for new consideration to more thoroughly investigate all circumstances.
Case No. 280/5710/22 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of the Main Tax Administration in Zaporizhzhia region regarding additional tax liability for profit tax and VAT.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established the reality of the plaintiff’s economic transactions with contractors (LLC “IN-BUD 2018”, LLC “CITY GOOD”, etc.), as provided primary documents fully confirm the content and volume of operations.
2. The controlling body did not provide convincing evidence of the transactions’ unreality, and its arguments are based on assumptions without proper substantiation.
3. The plaintiff proved the targeted use of purchased materials for work performed for PJSC “KYIVSTAR” and other customers, indicating the business purpose of operations.
Court Decision: Leave the Main Tax Administration’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and previous court rulings unchanged.
Case No. 991/14304/24 dated 05/03/2025
The case concerns the application of sanctions against the Russian institution “Russian Maritime Register of Shipping” due to its activities during Russian aggression against Ukraine.
The main court arguments are that, firstly, the activities of this Russian institution vi-Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
It undermines the state sovereignty of Ukraine; secondly, it conducts economic activities in temporarily occupied territories; thirdly, its assets are an instrument of Russian state influence in the Ukrainian economy.
The court decided to partially satisfy the claim of the Ministry of Justice and apply sanctions provided by the law “On Sanctions” by seizing more than 20 assets for state revenue – from shares and corporate rights to real estate and vehicles.
Case No. 916/885/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery from LLC “AMBRA GROUP” of 7,762,703.72 UAH of unjustly retained funds for land use without concluding a lease agreement.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court unjustifiably suspended the proceedings, awaiting a decision in an administrative case challenging the city council’s decision. The court emphasized that the economic court can independently establish the circumstances of the case and apply normative acts, and resolving the issue of a normative act’s validity is not grounds for suspending proceedings.
Court decision: Cancel the ruling of the appellate economic court and send the case for further consideration.
Case No. 640/20833/20 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute – replacement of party in enforcement proceedings regarding unpaid pension after pensioner’s death.
Main arguments of the court: firstly, legislation provides for the possibility of inheriting unpaid pension by family members or heirs. Secondly, the court drew attention to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirms the heirs’ right to receive accrued but unpaid pension. Thirdly, the court indicated that the appellate court incorrectly interpreted the norms on pension inheritance.
Court decision – cancel the appellate court’s resolution and uphold the first instance court’s decision to refuse satisfaction of the application for replacement of enforcement proceedings party.
Case No. 947/35581/20 dated 05/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring the state registrar’s decision on registering property rights to an apartment for a financial company under a mortgage agreement as unlawful.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Mortgage agreement conditions clearly stipulated that transfer of property rights to the mortgage subject can occur only after concluding a separate agreement on satisfying the mortgagee’s requirements.
– Such additional agreement was not concluded by the parties, therefore, the state registrar had no grounds to register property rights for the financial company.
– The plaintiff proved that the disputed apartment is his only housing, therefore a moratorium on property seizure applies to it.
3. Court decision: Cancel the state registrar’s decision on property rights registration and restore the previous state of property rights registration.
The court decision demonstrates a consistent position of courts regarding the need to comply with contractual terms when foreclosing on a mortgage subject.
Case No. 908/929/24 dated 25/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of land lease debt from LLC “Granum-Elit” for 2023.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Supreme Court established that the entire territory of Zaporizhzhia district was classified as an active combat zone in 2022.
– According to changes in the Tax Code, the company had the right not to pay land lease for the period from March 2022 to December 2022.
– The company submitted a clarifying tax declaration on 05.12.2023, reducing tax obligations for 2022 by 1,825,536.34 UAH.
3. Court decision: Partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal – cancellation of recovery of 1,825,536.34 UAH.Translation:
p.h., the remaining debt (136,680.69 UAH) remains unchanged.
The Court deviated from the previous position of lower instance courts regarding the interpretation of the Tax Code norms on exemption from land tax.
Case No. 910/11845/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professional legal assistance in the cassation instance in the amount of 50,000 UAH.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court recognized that the legal assistance agreement provides for a fixed amount of 50,000 UAH
– At the same time, the court has the right to assess the reasonableness and proportionality of expenses
– Considered that the case was not complex, the plaintiff’s legal position was consistent
– In the previous review, the plaintiff approximately indicated expenses of 30,000 UAH
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the motion and recover from the defendant 10,000 UAH of court expenses for professional legal assistance.
Interestingly, the court detailed the criteria for evaluating lawyer expenses, emphasizing the court’s right to reduce the claimed amounts.
Case No. 910/10820/20 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of the state executor regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for recovery of funds from the Housing and Utilities Department of the City of Kherson.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court established that the Housing and Utilities Department of Kherson is a non-profit state institution, therefore the execution of the court decision must be carried out through a state executor in accordance with the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”. Second, the actions of the state executor were legal, performed within the powers, and did not violate the debtor’s rights. Third, the court noted that the execution of a court decision for recovery of funds from a state institution has a special procedure defined by legislation on guarantees of court decision execution.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Housing and Utilities Department of the City of Kherson unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous court instances.
Case No. 910/23965/16 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the Rivne Regional Council’s decision on granting hunting grounds for use on defense lands.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The land plot belongs to defense lands with a special legal regime of use.
2. Legislation does not provide for the possibility of conducting hunting management activities on defense lands.
3. Transfer of hunting grounds for use was carried out in violation of the procedure for using defense lands established by Ukrainian legislation.
4. Hunting grounds cannot exist separately from the land plot, therefore their provision is related to land use rules.
Court decision: Uphold the previous court decisions on satisfying the prosecutor’s claim and invalidating the regional council’s decision on granting hunting grounds.
Case No. 905/55/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition and inclusion in the creditors’ registry of monetary claims of PJSC “Donbasenergo” against LLC “DTEK Skhidenergo” in the bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court recognized as improper the exclusion from the creditors’ registry of the amount of 2,327,008.29 UAH of damages, since the ruling on recovery of these funds was canceled by the appellate court.
2. The court supported the position that accrual of inflation losses and interest should occur from the moment of damage, and not from the moment the court decision becomes legally valid.
3. At the same time, the court limited the accrual to a three-year statute of limitations, adhering to the previous legal position of the Supreme Court.
Court decision: Partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal of PJSC “Donbasenergo” with referral of the case for new consideration.Translation:
Case No. 560/18205/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding payment of one-time monetary assistance to a serviceman upon dismissal and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff was dismissed from military service on grounds directly provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service”, and not by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 413.
2. The Court concluded that since the dismissal occurred on grounds directly defined in the law (one of the spouses has a child under 18), she is not entitled to one-time monetary assistance.
3. Regarding the recovery of average earnings, the court indicated that the courts of previous instances should have recovered funds for delay in executing the court decision on reinstatement, rather than for the entire period of forced absence.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling the decisions of previous instances regarding the payment of one-time monetary assistance and modifying the wording concerning the recovery of average earnings.
Case No. 320/14498/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring tax notifications-decisions issued by the Main Tax Administration in Kyiv as unlawful and canceling them.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court established that the court of first instance violated procedural norms by continuing the case review after receiving a motion for judicial recusal without properly examining this motion. This created doubts about the judge’s impartiality and objectivity, which is grounds for canceling the court decision. The court paid special attention to the fact that even the “appearance of justice” matters – justice must not only be administered but also be visible to the public.
Court Decision: Cancel the ruling of the appellate administrative court and refer the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 420/34374/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on real estate tax assessment for 240,259.50 hryvnias.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the courts of previous instances did not clarify whether the tax notification was properly sent to the correct address of the taxpayer. Second, the courts did not establish the exact date when the plaintiff became aware of the tax notification’s existence. Third, mechanical return of the claim without a deep analysis of the document receipt circumstances violates the person’s right to judicial protection.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for new consideration to thoroughly clarify the circumstances of sending and receiving the tax notification.
Case No. 380/13401/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a private executor’s ruling on collecting basic remuneration from JSC “Idea Bank” in the amount of 24,224.00 hryvnias.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Administrative courts’ jurisdiction extends to disputes challenging private executors’ rulings on fee collection.
2. The appellate court incorrectly closed the proceedings, not taking into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding such cases’ jurisdiction.
3. The right to choose a method of judicial protection belongs exclusively to the plaintiff, and the nature of the disputed legal relations indicates administrative jurisdiction.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for continuation of consideration to the appellate administrative court.
Case No. 911/515/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of court expenses for professionalLegal Aid Assistance from Limited Liability Company “Financial Company “Mendels” in favor of PERSON_91.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_91 complied with procedural requirements for submitting evidence of court expenses, specifically by submitting evidence within five days after the court decision, which corresponds to part 8 of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
2. The provided legal assistance agreement and additional documents confirm the reality and reasonableness of the legal assistance expenses.
3. The amount of court expenses is deemed proportionate to the case complexity, volume of work performed, and time spent by the lawyer.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint of Limited Liability Company “Financial Company “Mendels” unsatisfied, and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 757/4851/23-ц dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Reinstatement as General Director of the National Cultural Center of Ukraine in Moscow and recovery of wage arrears.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff’s dismissal occurred on legal grounds provided in the contract, specifically due to wage arrears and increasing overdue accounts payable of the Center.
2. By signing the contract, the plaintiff agreed to conditions of increased responsibility, and violation of even one contract point is grounds for early termination.
3. State Administration of Affairs is not a wage calculation entity, as wages are calculated from the Center’s own revenues.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling unchanged, refusing the plaintiff’s reinstatement and arrears recovery.
Case No. 922/1987/22 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Kharkiv City Council’s decision on land plot allocation to housing construction cooperative “PATRIOT” and cancellation of ownership registration for these plots.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The method of protection chosen by the prosecutor (invalidating the decision and canceling registration) is ineffective.
2. In case of state registration of ownership for a new owner, the owner has the right to file a claim for property recovery.
3. Canceling the decision without claiming possession restoration will not ensure effective protection of state rights.
4. Housing Code of the Ukrainian SSR and other Soviet-era normative acts remain valid and do not contradict Ukrainian legislation.
Court Decision: Appellate court ruling canceled, first instance court decision on rejecting the prosecutor’s claim maintained.
PERSON_1’s cassation complaint closed due to lack of grounds for appeal.
Case No. 300/2291/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the certificate of commissioning a multi-apartment residential building in Ivano-Frankivsk.
Main Court Arguments:
– Previous instance courts made decisions about rights of persons not involved in the case
– Simplified proceedings were incorrect as the case has significant public interest
– State architectural and construction control body had no legal grounds to file a claim to cancel the certificate
– Appellate instance court exceeded claim limits by applying norms not claimed by the plaintiff
Court Decision: Cancel previous instance decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the first instance court.
Case No. 910/3166/24 dated 05/03/2025Subject of the Dispute: Challenging the Order of the Municipal Property Department on Cancellation of an Electronic Auction for the Sale of a Non-Residential Building.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Municipal Property Department unjustifiably canceled the electronic auction in which PERSON_1 became the winner
– The decision to cancel the auction violates the principle of stability of public relations and deprives the person of the right to privatization
– A special statute of limitations of one month from the date of publication of auction results applies to the disputed decision to cancel the auction
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled previous court decisions in terms of satisfied claims, and referred the case for a new review.
The court clarified the interpretation of the special statute of limitations in privatization cases.
Case No. 18/257 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Replacement of the Creditor in the Bankruptcy Case of PJSC “Drilling Company ‘Bukros'”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The obligations of PJSC “BC ‘Bukros'” to JSC CB “PrivatBank” were already fully terminated in 2017 through performance.
2. The surety agreement signed on 25.01.2018 between JSC CB “PrivatBank” and LLC “Auction Center Plus” could not provide the right of claim for already terminated obligations.
3. Accordingly, LLC “Auction Center Plus” could not transfer the right of claim to LLC “Selkhozkomplekt” since such a right did not arise at all.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal of LLC “Selkhozkomplekt” and left previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 320/10045/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: The Prosecutor challenges the special permit issued to LLC “Krasnolymanske” for coal mining, considering it illegal.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, violations of the law regarding the issuance of the permit occurred in 2003 and 2013, but the prosecutor appealed to the court only in July 2023, missing the legally established terms. Second, the prosecution authorities until 2014 had supervisory powers and could have identified violations much earlier. Third, the fact of receiving materials from a criminal proceeding in February 2023 does not change the moment when the prosecutor should have known about the violation of state interests.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous instances to return the statement of claim due to missed terms of appeal.
Case No. 991/2413/24 dated 06/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the Dispute:
An official PERSON_6 is accused of requesting an illegal benefit of a particularly large amount for facilitating the financing of works for LLC “AVAKS PROF”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The court established that PERSON_6, being the deputy head of the Ternopil Regional Military Administration, in prior conspiracy with Person-1 on 23.02.2023, clarified the request for an illegal benefit from PERSON_10. In particular, he changed the percentage of the “kickback” from 5-7-10% to 7-7-10%, which increased the total amount from 1,766,112 UAH to 1,790,587 UAH.
3. Court Decision:
To find PERSON_6 guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and impose a punishment of 8 years and 2 months of imprisonment with confiscation of a car and prohibition from holding positions in state bodies for 3 years.
Case No. 243/16/23 dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the Dispute: Claiming a land plot of 2.0 hectares from PERSON_2 in favor of the state due to its illegal acquisition by PERSON_1.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– PERSON_1 twice illegally obtained a land plot for personal farming, which violates land legislationHere’s the translation of the provided text:
Legislation:
– The land plot was removed from state ownership against the will of the state
– Claiming the land plot is a proportional interference with the right of ownership
– The prosecutor did not miss the statute of limitations, as they learned about the violation on January 6, 2021
3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision on claiming the land plot from PERSON_2 in favor of the state.
The court decision fully complies with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the protection of state-owned lands.
Case No. 583/4410/23 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the state executor’s resolution on terminating enforcement proceedings regarding determining the father’s method of participation in children’s upbringing.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court believes that the state executor formally approached the execution of the court decision on the father’s visitation with children.
2. Despite the absence of direct obstacles from the mother, the children constantly refuse to communicate with the father.
3. The state executor did not take sufficient measures to establish relations between the father and children, in particular, did not involve a psychologist and child services.
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution, which cancels the state executor’s decision on terminating enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 345/1489/23 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Division of immovable property (shopping center) between co-owners.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Judicial expertise confirmed the technical possibility of dividing the shopping center according to Option No. 1, which ensures equal shares for co-owners.
2. The proposed division option corresponds to the actual order of using premises that has developed between co-owners.
3. The second division option involves a deviation from ideal shares and requires additional monetary compensation.
Court Decision: Satisfy the claim and divide the shopping center according to Option No. 1 of the judicial expertise, allocating 1/2 share of premises to each co-owner.
Case No. 991/6455/24 dated 06/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of assets (apartment, non-residential premises, car) of a National Police officer and his wife as unjustified and recovery of their value in favor of the state.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Regarding PERSON_1’s apartment: The court recognized his share as unjustified due to unproven legitimacy of money origin, gifted by his mother (1,804,000 UAH). The version about accumulating funds from renting out the apartment was deemed unreliable.
– Regarding the apartment and storage rooms of PERSON_2: The court recognized that they were purchased with her personal funds, including unofficial income from tutoring and work.
– Regarding the car: The court concluded that the couple had sufficient legal income to purchase it.
3. Court Decision: Recover from PERSON_1 in favor of the state 1,803,150 UAH – the value of his apartment share. Deny the claim in other parts.
Case No. 752/3617/22 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – division of an apartment purchased during marriage between spouses after divorce.
The court was guided by several key arguments: firstly, property acquired during marriage is considered joint marital property; secondly, the presumption of joint ownership can be rebutted, but the burden of proof lies with the party challenging it; thirdly, the defendant did not provide convincing evidence that the apartment was purchased with his personal funds.
The court decided to uphold previous court decisions and recognize the spouses’ ownership of the apartment at 1/2 share each.
Case No. 607/7293/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of disCase: Cancellation of State Registration of Ownership Right to 1/5 Share of Apartment, which was Transferred to “Investohills Vesta” Company in Repayment of Loan Debt
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the property valuation was conducted with legislative violations – without proper familiarization of the appraiser with the assessment object.
2. The value of the apartment share was incorrectly determined, which violated the plaintiff’s property rights.
3. Cancellation of state ownership registration is an effective method of protecting the plaintiff’s rights, as it will restore the previous status without additional judicial procedures.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal of “Investohills Vesta” company unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, namely to cancel state registration of ownership right to the disputed apartment share.
Case No. 643/12963/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing Permanent Residence with Mother and Recognizing Inheritance Property Rights.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the plaintiff actually lived together with her mother-testator at the time of her death, despite different registration addresses.
2. This is confirmed by a lease agreement, act of establishing residence fact, medical worker calls, and witness testimony.
3. Lack of registration at the same address is not an obstacle to recognizing the fact of joint residence, as the third part of Article 1268 of the Civil Code of Ukraine does not tie residence to registration.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances regarding establishing permanent residence fact and recognizing inheritance property rights for the plaintiff.
Case No. 761/43346/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Property Rights to an Apartment in Kyiv.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court emphasized that lawyer’s powers can be confirmed not only by a formally impeccable warrant but also by other documents, including a legal assistance agreement. Second, having a certificate of advocacy right that has not been revoked is sufficient confirmation of representative status. Third, the court indicated that formal warrant deficiencies cannot be grounds for depriving a person of the right to judicial protection.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous ruling of the appellate court to send the case for continued consideration.
Case No. 922/2860/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor Demands Return of a 45.6787 hectare Land Plot with Local Significance Archaeological Monuments – Burial Mounds.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court believes that land plot division may lead to disappearance of the dispute subject and make it impossible to return land to the state. Second, land plot arrest is necessary to preserve archaeological monuments and prevent their potential destruction. Third, the defendant’s proposed alternative interim measures violate the principle of proportionality and balance of parties’ interests.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling of the appellate commercial court and denied the company’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 925/425/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – OSBB lawsuit against the management company to compel certain actions.
The court carefully analyzed case materials and concluded that previous instances’ decisions are lawful. The main arguments were evidence of the management company’s failure to fulfill its direct obligations to multi-apartment house co-owners. The court established that the requirements of O…Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
The SBB (Supervisory Board) is substantiated and compliant with the current legislation of Ukraine on housing and communal services.
The Supreme Court left the management company’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous judicial instances.
Case No. 761/39550/17 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances regarding foreclosure on a mortgage object.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the report of the authorized person of the Deposit Guarantee Fund, referenced by LLC “YUVESTA DEVELOPMENT”, is not a newly discovered circumstance, as the transaction is void from the moment of its conclusion in accordance with the law, regardless of the Fund’s decision.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is a special type of proceeding, the purpose of which is not to revise court decisions or eliminate judicial errors.
3. The court noted that newly discovered circumstances are legal facts of significant importance that existed during the case consideration but were unknown to the process participants and could have led to a different court decision.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate commercial court unchanged.
Case No. 120/13166/21-а dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s claim for demolition of an unauthorized multi-apartment residential building constructed by PERSON_1 without proper permits.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecutor had the right to appeal to the court, as the State Architectural and Construction Inspection of Vinnytsia City Council was inactive regarding urban planning law violations.
2. Demolition of unauthorized construction is an extreme measure and possible only after:
– Impossibility of reconstruction
– Developer’s refusal to reconstruct
– Lack of land rights
3. The appellate court prematurely satisfied the claim without clarifying:
– Content of SACI prescriptions
– Possibility of object reconstruction
– Availability of land rights
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s resolution and refer the case for new consideration.
Case No. 127/14617/21 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of a non-residential premises purchase and sale agreement and recovery of property due to the buyer’s non-payment.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position on the inappropriateness of terminating the contract as a protection method, since the buyer did not refuse to accept and pay for the property.
2. The court indicated that in case of non-payment, the appropriate protection method is recovering unpaid funds, not contract termination.
3. It was established that PERSON_1 took actions to make payment, albeit after a significant time, which indicates an intention to fulfill contractual obligations.
Court Decision: Leave LLC “Gran” cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 183/1223/22 dated 06/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Eviction of defendants from a house that is a mortgage subject under a credit agreement between PrivatBank and the property owner.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The bank demanded eviction due to registration of other persons in the house without its consent, contrary to mortgage agreement terms.
2. The court established that legislation does not provide for eviction of the property owner’s family members solely for violating mortgage agreement registration conditions.
3. The Constitution and laws guarantee the right to housing, especially for children, and prohibit forced eviction without legal grounds.
Court Decision: Leave PrivatBank’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, i.e., deny the eviction of defendants.Case No. 369/4627/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of advance funds under a preliminary purchase and sale agreement for a residential house and land plot that was not executed.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The purchase and sale agreement between the parties was not concluded within the specified timeframe (until April 31, 2022)
– The transferred funds are an advance payment subject to return regardless of the reasons for non-performance of the agreement
– The Defendant (PERSON_2) did not provide evidence of the preliminary contract being fictitious
– There are no grounds for imposing a penalty on the buyer, as the seller did not fulfill their obligations
Court Decision: Recover from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 the paid advance funds in the amount of 389,229.35 UAH and court fees of 3,892.29 UAH.
Case No. 521/6456/20 dated 28/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishment of paternity and amendment of the birth certificate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Forensic molecular genetic expertise established that PERSON_2 could be the biological father of the child with a probability of 99.9999%.
2. PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 had a long-term relationship since 2017, during which they lived together and had intimate relations.
3. The Defendant did not provide any conclusive evidence to refute paternity, and his objections to the expertise are unfounded.
Court Decision: Recognize PERSON_2 as the father of PERSON_4 and make corresponding amendments to the birth certificate.
Case No. 910/18390/21 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a service agreement for electricity transmission totaling 4,115,350.21 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court thoroughly analyzed the contract terms and identified methodological errors in the Plaintiff’s (NEC “Ukrenergo”) calculations.
– In particular, the Plaintiff incorrectly determined the debt amount for planned electricity volumes, mistakenly including August and September 2020 periods without proper evidence.
– The court performed its own recalculation of the claimed amounts and partially satisfied the claim.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal of NEC “Ukrenergo”, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 560/5916/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Pension assignment for a civil servant under the Law “On Civil Service” for a person previously receiving disability pension.
The court drew attention to a fundamentally important legal position: a person who previously received a disability pension under the Law “On Civil Service” and was then transferred to a pension under the Law “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance” has the right to re-assignment of pension under the Law “On Civil Service”. Previous instance courts did not provide proper legal assessment of the case circumstances, particularly the plaintiff’s civil service length and documents confirming their pension right.
The Supreme Court canceled previous instance decisions and referred the case for a new review to thoroughly examine all circumstances and evidence.
Case No. 200/1767/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the pension for an electrical fitter at a salt enterprise in accordance with the Law “On Enhancing the Prestige of Miners’ Labor”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– Law No. 345-VI applies only to workers extracting coal, iron ore, manganese, uranium, and other specific ores
– The “Artemsil” enterprise mines salt, which is not included in the list of minerals in the law
– Working underground itselfTranslation:
Not in itself a basis for obtaining a preferential pension, the type of mineral resource is specifically important
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, that is, deny the plaintiff’s request for pension recalculation.
Case No. 166/789/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages caused by unlawful criminal prosecution and being under investigation.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff was unlawfully prosecuted and was under investigation for 25 months and 26 days
– The court verdict was acquittal, which confirms the unlawfulness of criminal prosecution
– The amount of moral damages is determined taking into account the minimum wage at the time of case consideration (8000 UAH)
– The court considered the duration of suffering, limitations of freedoms, and negative impact on the plaintiff’s reputation
3. Court Decision: Recover from the state budget in favor of the plaintiff 206,933.33 UAH for moral damages and 19,308.33 UAH for legal assistance expenses.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach, maintaining legal terminology and precision.]
