Case No. 824/32/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – recognition and permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court on recovering monetary funds from “Energoatom” in favor of the German company WK Energo GmbH.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the parties and concluded that Energoatom’s appeal does not contain convincing grounds for canceling the previous ruling. The Kyiv Court of Appeal correctly established that the arbitration court’s decision complies with legislative norms and can be recognized and enforced on the territory of Ukraine. The Supreme Court panel of judges supported the legal position of previous instances regarding compliance with procedural and substantive law.
The Supreme Court left Energoatom’s appeal unsatisfied and confirmed the previous ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 462/1373/22 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of funds for the sale of a land plot that were not returned by the representative to the owner after concluding the purchase and sale agreement.
The court’s main arguments: First, the power of attorney granted the representative the authority to sell the land plot, which he did, receiving 1,867,419 UAH. Second, under the agency agreement, the representative is obligated to immediately transfer all received funds to the principal. Third, the defendant provided no evidence of returning the funds to the plaintiff, therefore the court considers her guilty of non-return of money.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 2,423,065.26 UAH, including the principal debt amount, interest, and inflationary losses.
Case No. 924/232/22 (924/201/22) dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of the assignment of claim (cession) agreement dated 02.02.2022, concluded between the Subsidiary Enterprise “Rudtrans-International” and Individual Entrepreneur Yatsyshyn.
The court’s main arguments:
1. Supplementary Agreement No. 1 dated 21.09.2018 to the returnable financial assistance agreement, which prohibited assignment of claim, is valid.
2. There is no evidence that Individual Entrepreneur Yatsyshyn acted in bad faith or knew about the prohibition of claim assignment.
3. The plaintiff (PJSC “Proskuriv”) did not prove how the cession agreement directly violates its rights.
Court decision: Uphold the first instance court’s decision to reject the claim for invalidation of the cession agreement.
Case No. 922/1341/22 dated 04/03/2025
1. Subject of the dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office challenged the Kharkiv District State Administration’s order on withdrawing land plots from the state enterprise “Research Farm ‘Kutuzivka'” and transferring them for lease to the private agricultural enterprise “Demetra”.
2. The court’s main arguments:
– The disputed land plots are not particularly valuable research field lands, as the enterprise did not have the status of a research institution
– The Kharkiv District State Administration acted within its powers when withdrawing the land plots
– Declaring the order illegal is an ineffective method of protection, as it has already been executed
3. Court decision:Deny the prosecutor’s claim in full.
Key feature: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of the status of research institution lands.
Case No. 914/620/20(463/3662/23) dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of wages, severance compensation, and obligation to issue a work book to an employee who believes she was dismissed unlawfully.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court established that the employee’s resignation statement did not contain a specific dismissal date, which makes her dismissal by mutual agreement impossible. Second, there are no marks on the statement indicating employer’s approval. Third, the employee did not provide evidence of an agreement on mutual termination of labor relations, therefore her claims are unfounded.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld previous court decisions and denied PERSON_1’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 916/4116/23 dated 04/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of a lease agreement for a hard surface area of 56.58 m2 and obligation to vacate the land plot.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Lease agreement may relate to hard surface as a separate individually defined property
– No conclusive evidence that the contract is simulated and conceals land plot lease
– Previous instance courts improperly investigated the circumstances of the case and did not provide a comprehensive legal assessment of evidence
3. Court decision: Cancel decisions of previous instances and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for full and comprehensive investigation of circumstances.
Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice of considering similar cases, detailing approaches to qualifying hard surface lease agreements.
Case No. 922/483/22 dated 26/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging privatization of a non-residential premises of municipal ownership in Kharkiv by purchase by the tenant without auction.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Prosecutor missed the statute of limitations for challenging privatization
– Court established that the prosecutor was aware of the violation as early as 2017
– Prosecutor did not prove valid reasons for missing the statute of limitations
– Quarantine did not suspend the statute of limitations, as it had already expired before its introduction
3. Court decision: Deny the prosecutor’s claim to declare the privatization of non-residential premises invalid.
The court decision demonstrates a consistent position of courts regarding compliance with statutes of limitations and impossibility of challenging privatization after the legally established term.
Case No. 824/32/24 dated 06/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition and permission to execute the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court on recovering 324,097.90 euros from JSC “Energoatom” in favor of WK Energo GmbH under the contract.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Arbitration clause is autonomous from the main contract and does not terminate its validity after the contract’s expiration
– Civil law aspects of the dispute can be transferredand for consideration by international arbitration
– Enforcement of the arbitral award does not violate the public order of Ukraine, as it concerns only a specific legal entity
– The parties voluntarily agreed to arbitration of the dispute in the contract
3. Court Decision: To leave the appeal of JSC “Energoatom” without satisfaction and to allow the enforcement of the arbitral award.
Case No. 216/5160/22 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for property and moral damages caused by the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff demanded to recover from the Russian Federation property damage of almost 2 million dollars and moral damage of 5.2 million hryvnias for violation of his rights during the occupation of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions.
2. The court partially satisfied the claim, recovering 3.657 million hryvnias of property damage and 1.2 million hryvnias of moral damage, recognizing the fact of violation of the plaintiff’s rights by the Russian Federation.
3. When determining compensation, the court took into account the nature of the offense, the depth of mental suffering, and the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances and to refuse satisfaction of the remaining claims.
Case No. 904/3041/24 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legitimacy of returning the appeal of PJSC “Pivnichnyi HZK” in a case about recovering debt from JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the company filed an application to eliminate deficiencies in the appeal within the last day of the court-set period, i.e., in a timely manner. The appellate court prematurely returned the appeal, without taking into account that the procedural law allows repeated application to eliminate deficiencies within the set period. Moreover, the court referred to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which confirm the legal position on the importance of observing procedural terms.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new review to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 759/1382/19 dated 07/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the resumption of enforcement proceedings for returning a child after the expiration of court-defined times and days of staying with the father.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The state executor completed the enforcement proceedings without taking all necessary measures for the compulsory execution of the court decision on establishing the procedure for child visitation.
2. The law allows the claimant to apply for resumption of enforcement proceedings if the debtor impedes visitation with the child.
3. Execution of court decisions is a component of the right to a fair trial, and the state is obligated to ensure real restoration of violated rights.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on obliging the state executor to resume enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 910/5814/17 dated 12/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for grain storage services between the State Food and Grain Corporation and the Agrarian Fund.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The warehouse contractHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
The tariff provided for long-term storage was 16.50 UAH per ton per month
– The plaintiff provided grain storage services from June 2014 to February 2017
– The defendant did not pay for the services, citing deterioration of grain quality
– The court established that the plaintiff compensated for the poor quality grain, therefore payment for services is mandatory
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the claim and recover from the Agrarian Fund 3,274,523.14 UAH of the principal debt for grain storage services.
Case No. 640/17981/19 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of the Large Taxpayers Office regarding violation of currency legislation in foreign economic activity.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that mutual settlement of funds occurred between the companies for two contracts, as a result of which the company did not have overdue accounts receivable.
2. Legislation does not prohibit terminating obligations between residents by offset rather than direct performance.
3. Reduction of goods value occurred after complete export, which did not affect the timeliness of settlements.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of the Office unsatisfied, and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 824/145/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of dispute – consideration of the appeal of LLC “IC ACTIVE” to cancel the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding debt recovery from the bank “Kazakhstan-Ziraat International Bank”.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, the appeal did not contain convincing grounds for canceling the arbitration court decision; secondly, the previous decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal was adopted in compliance with all procedural norms; thirdly, the applicant’s arguments do not refute the circumstances of the main case about debt recovery.
The court decided to leave the appeal unsatisfied and confirm the previous ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 818/1805/17 dated 07/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding recognition of economic transactions of LLC “VKF “Strum” with contractors as unreal.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established the reality of the plaintiff’s economic transactions with contractors LLC “Alpha-Cable”, LLC “Optima-Light” and LLC “Energosvit” based on primary documents
– Absence of warehouses or technical errors in documents cannot indicate the unreality of transactions
– Violation of tax discipline by contractors cannot automatically mean a violation by the plaintiff
– The court was guided by the principle of individual taxpayer responsibility
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of the Main Directorate of SFS unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 991/6770/23 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of dispute – appellate challenge of the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated 14.01.2025.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the defendant’s representative’s appeal. The panel of judges concluded that the previous ruling of the court of first instance isThe text appears to be a compilation of court case summaries. Here’s the translation:
The decision was deemed lawful and substantiated. The judges did not find grounds to satisfy the appeal, as the submitted documents did not contain convincing evidence in favor of changing the previous decision.
The court decided to leave the appeal without satisfaction and the previous ruling unchanged.
Case No. 990/176/23 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine on applying sanctions to a French citizen in connection with his previous work at a Russian bank.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. At the time of proposing sanctions, the plaintiff was no longer a member of the Russian bank’s board of directors (resigned in October 2020).
2. There are no specific evidence or facts substantiating the necessity of applying sanctions to this particular person.
3. Government representatives failed to provide the court with convincing evidence regarding the grounds for imposing sanctions, despite repeated court proposals.
Court Decision: The claim was satisfied, the Decree of the President of Ukraine was declared unlawful and invalid in the part concerning sanctions against the plaintiff.
Case No. 640/1141/20 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: “Energy Plus” Company attempted to obtain VAT budget reimbursement amounting to 9,686,612 hryvnias.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that real estate purchase and sale agreements, based on which the Company formed a tax credit, were declared invalid by a commercial court decision. According to the Tax Code, if transactions are declared invalid, the taxpayer is obligated to adjust tax credit amounts. Therefore, at the time of court appeal, the Company no longer had the right to receive budget reimbursement.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the Company’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the administrative appellate court’s decision to refuse budget reimbursement.
Case No. 826/10434/17 dated 07/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on property tax for the owner of a residential house with an area of 552.5 sq.m.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the property owner is obligated to pay taxes in accordance with current legislation. Second, the tax calculation was performed correctly based on data about the residential house area and legally established rates. Third, the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the impropriety of the calculated tax liability.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. П/811/1871/17 dated 07/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notification-decisions by the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service in Kirovohrad Region regarding increased VAT and profit tax obligations for LLC “Krembytpostach”.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established the reality of economic transactions between LLC “Krembytpostach” and LLC “Prime Guarantee Group”, confirmed by primary documents. Second, the court noted that a potential violation by a contractor cannot automatically indicate a violation of tax legislation by the enterprise itself. Third, references by the tax authority to…
(Note: The last paragraph appears to be cut off in the original text)Pre-trial investigation is not proper evidence for canceling tax credit.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and denied the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service, thus supporting the taxpayer’s position.
Case No. 904/2319/22 dated 05/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: The prosecutor challenged the state registration of ownership rights of the company “CIVILCOM LIMITED” for an apartment that was previously a non-residential municipal property.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The disputed real estate was removed from the city council’s possession against its will based on a court decision that was subsequently canceled
– The person who first registered the premises as an apartment did not have the right to alienate it
– The most effective way to protect the property rights of the territorial community is a vindication claim for property recovery, rather than canceling registration records
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the previous ruling of the appellate court to reject the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 520/28829/24 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: A person challenges the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding non-accrual and non-payment of a monthly pension supplement of 2000 UAH from July 2021.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court supported previous court decisions, considering that the plaintiff missed the statutory six-month period for filing a lawsuit. The court emphasized that the pensioner had an objective opportunity to learn about the non-accrual of the supplement immediately upon receiving the pension for July 2021, and her later appeal in October 2024 violates the principle of legal certainty.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 916/103/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt under a contract for landscaping work.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that an individual entrepreneur Zyuzina V.P. and LLC “Kvant Public” entered into a contract for landscaping work.
2. Service provision act No. 20 dated 03.08.2022 confirms the fact of work performance, has all necessary details and is signed by authorized representatives of the parties without any remarks.
3. The defendant did not provide convincing evidence of non-performance of work or its poor quality, and his arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence are unfounded.
Court decision: Leave the decisions of previous instances unchanged and recover 4,564,399.87 UAH of debt from LLC “Kvant Public” in favor of individual entrepreneur Zyuzina V.P.
Case No. 199/3147/23 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of a land plot and cancellation of state registration of land lease rights for a plot of 2.00 hectares with cadastral number 1421786600:03:000:1177.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the procedure for obtaining the land plot by PERSON_1 was carried out in compliance with legislative requirements.
2. The prosecutor did not provide convincing evidence of document forgery or illegality of property rights registration for the land plot.
3. The right of ownership is considered an acquired right.
