Here is the translation of the legal analysis:
Case No. 460/9136/23 dated 10/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the refusal of the Urban Planning and Architecture Department to extend the temporary structure placement passport for entrepreneurial activity.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The temporary structure placement passport is not a permit document, therefore, the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 314 on automatic extension of documents during martial law does not apply to it.
– The validity period of the placement passport had already expired at the time of the plaintiff’s appeal (11.10.2022), therefore, the respondent’s refusal was lawful.
– Previous instance courts incorrectly qualified the placement passport as a permit document.
3. Court decision: Previous instance decisions were canceled, and the individual entrepreneur’s claim for extension of the placement passport was rejected.
Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice regarding the interpretation of the concept of “permit document”.
Case No. 926/675/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring illegal and canceling the Sokyriany City Council’s decision to revoke the state act for permanent land use.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Sokyriany City Council lacks the authority to independently cancel a previously issued state act for permanent land use.
2. The state act dated 26.03.1998 remains valid, as it was not declared invalid through judicial procedure.
3. Previous court decisions have already confirmed the legality of the permanent land use right by the “Radogost” company.
Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal of the Sokyriany City Council and leave the appellate commercial court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 904/62/19 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – conflict between State Enterprise “Konstruktorske Byuro ‘Pivdenne'” and Joint Stock Company “Dniprovazmash” regarding declaring invalid certain points of an additional agreement to the contract and the legitimacy of contract termination.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of both parties, paying special attention to the legal grounds for challenging the additional agreement and abuse of rights. The panel of judges concluded that previous judicial instances did not fully investigate the factual circumstances of the case and did not provide proper legal assessment of all evidence. The Supreme Court believes that additional review of the case with a more in-depth examination of all legal nuances of contractual relations is necessary.
The court decided to cancel the previous appellate court resolution and refer the case for new consideration to the Central Appellate Commercial Court.
Case No. 918/666/24 dated 11/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of damages from the Infrastructure and Improvement Department of Rivne City Council in the amount of 338,173.10 UAH, caused by the dismantling of advertising structures.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The case should be suspended until the resolution of administrative case No. 380/16131/21, which concerns the legitimacy of the Department’s actions regarding the extension of advertising structure permits.
– The Supreme Court previously indicated the need to clarify the status of the Commission that made the dismantling decision.
– To resolve the dispute about damage compensation, it is necessary to establish the legality of the Department’s actions regarding permits and dismantling.
3. Court decision: Reject the cassation appeal and leave the appellate court’s ruling on suspension of proceedings unchanged.
The Court changed its previous legal position regarding the form of the judicial decision. The main arguments include that excluding the pre-trial detention period is not a modification of punishment, does not reclassify the act as more serious, and does not increase the scope of accusation. Therefore, the appellate court may adopt such a decision in the form of a ruling, rather than a verdict, as was previously believed.
The Court left the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 910/2810/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Legal Assistance Costs in the Cassation Instance between LLC “BASF T.O.V.” and the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Court partially satisfied the application of LLC “BASF T.O.V.” regarding the recovery of legal assistance costs. The decision is based on an analysis of the volume and quality of legal assistance provided in the cassation instance. The Court recognized the validity of the plaintiff’s claims for cost reimbursement, but not in full, appointing partial compensation.
Court Decision: To recover from the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in favor of LLC “BASF T.O.V.” 50,000 hryvnias of legal assistance costs in the cassation instance.
Case No. 640/5458/17 dated 18/02/2025
The case concerns a road traffic accident in which the driver PERSON_6 violated traffic rules and caused moderate bodily injuries to a passenger of another vehicle.
The Court carefully analyzed all evidence and concluded that PERSON_6 is guilty of violating paragraph 10.1 of the Traffic Rules – he did not ensure the safety of the maneuver when turning left and did not notice the “Ford” vehicle moving behind him. In particular, the court took into account the testimony of the accident participants, expert conclusions, and case materials that confirmed the prosecution’s version.
The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and sentenced PERSON_6 to 2 years of restricted freedom with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 3 years, which was mitigated by release from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 387/192/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 due to the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Court established that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the specifics of calculating pre-trial investigation periods during martial law. In particular, the criminal proceedings were initiated on October 21, 2022, during martial law, so the investigation period should not have been counted towards the total periods. Moreover, the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of combining different criminal proceedings and their impact on investigation periods.
Court Decision: To cancel the rulings of the courts of previous instances and assign a new hearing in the court of first instance, taking into account the provided recommendations.
Case No. 404/3843/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the first instance court’s verdict convicting a person for causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the defense arguments and concluded that the evidence of guilt is convincing, witness testimonies are consistent and coherent, and the trial procedure was observed. The Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not re-evaluate evidence but checks compliance with procedural norms, and in this case, all legal requirements were met.No significant violations have been established.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the judgment of the first instance court – unchanged.
Case No. 910/9314/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of ownership rights to the third-floor premises with an area of 742.4 m² in the building at 34 Khreshchatyk Street in Kyiv through acquisitive prescription.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The claimed interim measure (prohibition of creating obstacles to access to premises) does not correspond to the principle of adequacy and is not proportionate to the future claim requirements for recognition of ownership.
2. The court cannot apply interim measures that essentially resolve the dispute on the merits before the case is heard.
3. The claimed interim measure goes beyond the subject of the dispute, as it concerns premises on the third and seventh floors, whereas the claim relates only to the third floor.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, the resolution of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 912/2027/24 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of funds paid to the State Budget for canceled tax notifications-decisions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The disputed legal relations are of a public law nature, as they arose in the sphere of tax collection and concern the return of tax payments.
2. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about applying the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, pointing to the difference in the circumstances of the case.
3. The determining criterion for jurisdiction differentiation is the nature of legal relations, not just the subject composition.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the court decisions of previous instances – unchanged, as the dispute is subject to consideration in administrative, not economic proceedings.
Case No. 918/749/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Opening bankruptcy proceedings for LLC “Rivne Agrarian Enterprise” based on the application of LLC “Spektr-Agro”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in the decisions of previous instances, in particular, the issue of the creditor’s claim priority was not clearly investigated, and the circumstances regarding the presence/absence of collateral under the agricultural note were not established. Lower courts did not verify whether the creditor’s claims were correctly classified as fourth-priority, without clarifying the status of collateral security.
Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the Economic Court of Rivne Region for preparatory court session.
Case No. 387/192/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the rulings of district and appellate courts in a criminal case against PERSON_7, accused of creating a criminal organization and illegal drug trafficking.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found that previous court decisions require review, as they likely contain significant procedural or material errors. The court concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new hearing to the first instance court for a more detailed and comprehensive examination of the criminal proceedings circumstances. The panel of judges partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, indicating grounds for reviewing previous court decisions.
Court Decision: To cancel the rulings of Dobrovelychkivka District Court and Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court and assign a new hearing of the case in the first instance court.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court violated the convicted person’s right to defense by examining the case in her absence and without legal representation, despite the fact that the criminal proceedings concern an especially serious crime. The court recognized that the appellate review was conducted with significant procedural violations that make it impossible to recognize the judicial decision as lawful and substantiated.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court while respecting the convicted person’s right to defense.
Case No. 359/2693/23 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s Cassation Complaint against the Ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court regarding PERSON_10.
Main Court Arguments: The Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court carefully examined the prosecutor’s arguments but found no grounds for satisfying the cassation complaint. The court concluded that the previous ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court is lawful and substantiated. The court’s decision is based on a thorough analysis of all provided case materials and compliance with procedural norms.
Court Decision: Leave the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 712/5142/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Robbery of the victim PERSON_8, as a result of which light bodily injuries were inflicted and a wallet with 1,700 UAH was stolen.
The Court was Guided by the Following Key Arguments: First, the evidence provided by the prosecution is admissible and reliable, including identification protocols where the victim clearly pointed to PERSON_5 as the robber; second, minor procedural inaccuracies in document preparation do not affect their evidentiary value; third, the impossibility of interrogating the victim and witness due to their death does not violate the defense’s rights, as there are other convincing evidence of guilt.
The Court Decided to Leave the Cherkasy Appellate Court’s Verdict Unchanged, Thereby Confirming PERSON_5’s Guilt in the Presented Charge and the Imposed Punishment of 4 Years and 6 Months of Imprisonment.
Case No. 910/10403/23 dated 06/03/2025
Here is the Analysis of the Judicial Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt from PJSC “Bank Cambio” in favor of PJSC “Ukrgazbank” under an agreement for securities account servicing for the amount of 23,000 UAH.
2. Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court pointed out the need to clarify in detail the legal nature of the debt, as part of the bank’s assets (securities) were sold at auction to other companies. The court drew attention that the previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances regarding the transfer of rights to securities and the status of debt in the context of the bank’s liquidation procedure.
3. Court Decision: Revoke previous judicial decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 522/5831/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Transfer of Proceedings from One Appellate Court (Odesa) to Another (Mykolaiv).
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court reviewed the submission of the Odesa Appellate Court on transferring proceedings to another court. The decision to transfer the case is based on procedural normsHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular Article 34, which regulates the procedure for transferring cases between courts. The court found it necessary to satisfy the motion and transfer the case for consideration to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the motion of the Odesa Court of Appeal and transferred the proceedings (case No. 522/5831/24) for consideration to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 640/16236/19 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding property tax on real estate other than land plots.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, PERSON_1 did not provide any evidence that they are an agricultural producer or use the real estate directly for agricultural activities. Second, the courts of previous instances did not investigate all circumstances of the case, in particular, did not assess the legitimacy of setting tax rates by the local council and did not verify the grounds for tax accrual for all real estate objects. Third, the controlling body adhered to the terms of sending tax notifications-decisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the decisions of previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the claim, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for additional investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 537/1473/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of a cassation complaint by the convicted person and their defender against the district court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions are lawful and substantiated. The court found no grounds for satisfying the cassation complaint, as there is no evidence in the case materials of violation of criminal procedural legislation or incorrect application of criminal law. The panel of judges considers that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case.
Court Decision: To leave the verdict of the Kriukiv District Court and the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation complaints – unsatisfied.
Case No. 640/5458/17 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Criminal Case on Violation of Road Traffic Safety Rules (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the evidence of the person’s guilt is indisputable. The court took into account all circumstances of the committed offense, including the mechanism of the traffic accident and its consequences. The panel of judges found no grounds for canceling or changing the previous court decisions, as they correspond to the factual circumstances of the case and the requirements of the law.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaints unsatisfied and confirmed the previous court decisions regarding the person who committed the offense.
Case No. 910/10268/23 dated 06/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of actions by JSC “Ukrainian Railways” as unlawful regarding the transfer of a number of electricity consumers to the universal service provider PJSC “Kharkivenerhozbut” without their consent.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Transfer of consumers was carried out based on the order of the Ministry of Energy No. 104 dated 04.03.2022 under martial law conditions
– The system distribution operator had the right to change records in commercial accounting point registers
– There are no grounds to consider the respondent’s actions unlawful, as they were performed in execution of a special regulatory act
3. Court Decision: Reject the claim of PJSC “Kharkivenerhozbut”On Recognition of Actions as Unlawful.
The Supreme Court supported the position of previous instances and left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/2201/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on granting permission to SMART HOLDING to acquire shares of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the procedure for granting concentration permission and identified procedural violations by the Antimonopoly Committee. In particular, it was found that the committee improperly reviewed the application of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo” to reconsider the previous decision. The court drew attention to the need to comply with all procedural norms when making decisions on economic concentration.
Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo”, canceled previous court decisions, declared the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision invalid, and obliged the committee to re-examine the application for review of the share acquisition permission.
Case No. 902/546/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Legality of the Teplyk Village Council acquiring ownership of a land plot with cadastral number 0523783000:01:000:0321, on which an archaeological monument – a Trypillia culture settlement – is located.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The disputed land plot contains a local significance archaeological monument, which belongs to historical and cultural lands
– Lands with archaeological monuments can exclusively be in state ownership
– Transfer of such a land plot to communal ownership and subsequent lease is illegal
– Negatory claim is an appropriate method of protecting state ownership rights
3. Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions on declaring the lease agreement invalid, canceling registration actions, and returning the land plot to the state.
Case No. 712/5142/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal regarding the convicted PERSON_5.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and arguments of the cassation appeal. The court concluded that previous court decisions are lawful and substantiated, as they are based on proper and admissible evidence. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal and cancel the previous verdict.
Court Decision: Leave the Cherkasy Court of Appeal’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 752/24930/24 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s submission on transferring criminal proceedings against a person charged under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the appellate court’s submission on changing the criminal case’s jurisdiction. The court concluded that there are insufficient grounds to satisfy the motion to transfer the case to another court. The decision is based on an analysis of procedural norms and case circumstances that do not require changing jurisdiction.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s submission unsatisfied, that is, denied changing the criminal case’s jurisdiction.
Case No. 910/6180/20 dated 10/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreementDispute between the bank and JSC “Kyivmedpreparat” and invalidation of the commission agreement clause.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– PJSC “Omega Shareholders Company” as a shareholder does not have the right to challenge the court decision, as it does not directly concern its rights and obligations.
– The company’s property is legally separate from the shareholders’ property, therefore, the conclusion of the agreement does not violate corporate rights.
– The court decision did not resolve issues related to the rights or obligations of the shareholder.
3. Court decision: To leave the cassation complaint of PJSC “Omega Shareholders Company” unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate commercial court – unchanged.
Case No. 404/3843/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of the defender’s cassation complaint against the resolution of the Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court regarding the criminal case of PERSON_7.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the case materials and arguments of the cassation complaint. The court concluded that the previous appellate court made a lawful decision that complies with all procedural norms. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the defender’s cassation complaint and cancel the previous resolution.
Court decision: To leave the resolution of the Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court unchanged, and the defender’s cassation complaint – unsatisfied.
Case No. 727/1506/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against a person convicted of illegal sale of psychotropic substances.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court found the evidence for the episode dated October 24, 2022, inadmissible due to untimely entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, which made it impossible to prove the person’s guilt. The court took into account the convict’s personal circumstances, including having three minor children, absence of previous convictions, and undergoing drug addiction treatment.
Court decision: The court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, excluded the episode from October 24, 2022, and mitigated the punishment to 1 year of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 755/1762/20 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case about causing minor bodily injuries to PERSON_8 by the victim during a conflict in the house.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that more than three years have passed since the commission of the criminal offense, therefore PERSON_8 is subject to release from criminal liability due to the statute of limitations. The court noted that the accused previously agreed with such a decision, and his non-appearance in court sessions does not indicate objection to release from liability.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and released PERSON_8 from criminal liability under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, closing the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 537/1473/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case about a road traffic accident resulting in the death of two car passengers.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed all evidence in the case and established that the convict’s guilt is fully proven. The court took into account expert conclusions, witness and expert testimonies, and mechanical damages to vehicles. The defense’s version that the “Range Rover” driver caused the accident was completely refuted by the collected evidence. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments about procedural violations and the absence of suspect status.
Court decision: To leave the district court verdict and the appellate court resolution unchanged, cassation
