I apologize, but the text appears to be truncated at the last case. Could you please provide the complete text for the last case (Справа №635/3558/21) so I can translate it fully?
Would you like me to translate the existing portions of the text?Transfer of a Criminal Case Involving a Group of Persons (15 Individuals) from One Court to Another within Different Appellate Jurisdictions.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the defense counsel’s motion and concluded that there are no sufficient grounds for granting the request to change jurisdiction. The court believes that the current court is fully capable of considering the criminal case on its merits, adhering to all procedural norms and ensuring a fair trial.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court denied the defense counsel’s motion to change the jurisdiction of the criminal case.
Case No. 910/6287/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recovery of Monetary Funds Amounting to 4,813,712.71 UAH from an Individual Entrepreneur in Favor of a Military Unit.
The Court was Guided by the Following Key Arguments: First, procedural violations were identified in previous court decisions that make it impossible to make a reasoned decision; second, the appellate court did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not provide a proper legal assessment of the presented evidence; third, it is necessary to additionally verify all circumstances of the case and establish a final legal position regarding the recovery of monetary funds.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and refer the case for a new review to the Northern Appellate Commercial Court.
Case No. 300/3897/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s Decision to Refuse Disability Pension Due to Insufficient Insurance Tenure.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the position of lower courts that the Law “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” is a special law that defines pension assignment mechanisms. The plaintiff’s insurance tenure is 7 years, which is less than the established 10 years for persons aged 43 to 45. Provisions of the old Law “On Pension Provision” cannot be applied as they contradict the new profile law.
Court Decision: Dismiss the cassation complaint without satisfaction, previous court decisions remain unchanged.
Case No. 939/1265/23 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an Analysis of the Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Closure of Criminal Proceedings against Three Ukrposhta Employees Suspected of Appropriating Monetary Funds Totaling 711,354.16 UAH.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice and established that the period from the moment of issuing a resolution to close criminal proceedings to the moment of its cancellation is NOT included in the pre-trial investigation period. The court was guided by the resolution of the united chamber dated April 1, 2024, which takes precedence over previous decisions. The judges believe that local and appellate courts incorrectly applied the criminal procedural law by mechanically closing the proceedings.
3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and assign a new review in the court of first instance.
Case No. 461/2922/20 dated 27/02/2025
Here is a Brief Analysis of the Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Official Misappropriation and Embezzlement of Client Funds by a Bank Official.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– It was established that PERSON_7, being a bank branch manager, systematically appropriated client funds by manipulating deposit accounts
– Guilt is confirmed by testimonyHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Victims, witnesses, and expert opinions:
– PERSON_7’s actions had mercenary intent and were accompanied by document forgery
– The court thoroughly examined all circumstances and evidence in the case
3. Court Decision: The local court’s verdict was left unchanged – PERSON_7 was found guilty of embezzlement and sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 908/713/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Bankruptcy declaration of Limited Liability Company “Graal” based on the application of Municipal Enterprise “Vodokanal”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the debtor lacks sufficient property to cover creditors’ claims, with the only asset being a 759/1000 share of a dormitory valued at 43,258,280 hryvnias.
2. The property manager conducted a comprehensive analysis of the debtor’s financial and economic condition, sent inquiries to state authorities, and established the absence of other assets.
3. The creditors’ meeting decided to declare the debtor bankrupt and open liquidation proceedings, which was also considered by the court.
Court Decision: Declare Limited Liability Company “Graal” bankrupt and open liquidation proceedings.
Case No. 205/4374/21 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding a robbery with murder of the victim, committed by PERSON_8 and PERSON_9.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The appellate court formally approached the verification of the convict’s claims about illegal pre-trial investigation methods, limiting itself to a reference to the State Bureau of Investigation’s resolution without a deep analysis of circumstances.
2. The appellate instance court did not provide proper legal assessment of PERSON_8’s arguments about possible illegal investigation methods applied to him and PERSON_11.
3. The appellate court did not fulfill the procedural law requirements regarding the completeness and motivation of the court decision.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court, maintaining the preventive measure of detention.
Case No. 607/26888/18 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Ternopil Appellate Court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint regarding the extension of administrative supervision of a person.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court rightfully refused to restore the term for appellate appeal, as PERSON_6 actually participated in the court session on December 27, 2018, and his claims about non-participation are based only on assumptions. Moreover, the defender acquired powers after the appeal term had expired, making it impossible to restore procedural terms.
Court Decision: Leave the Ternopil Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged and dismiss PERSON_6’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 520/525/20 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Northern Interregional Office of the State Tax Service for Working with Large Taxpayers.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions have procedural deficiencies. In particular, lower instance courts did not fully and comprehensively examine the case circumstances, did not provide proper legal assessment of evidence. The cassation court considers it necessary to return the case for a new review to additionally study all circumstances and ensure the completeness of judicial investigation.
The Supreme Court prHere is the translation of the text:
He decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 243/8566/19 dated 03/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding the organization and participation in an armed gang with the purpose of committing a robbery against a citizen.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Court of Appeal found PERSON_6, PERSON_12, PERSON_13, and PERSON_7 guilty of banditry, however, the Supreme Court considers this decision premature.
– The local court previously acquitted the defendants, believing that they do not have clear signs of a stable organized group.
– The Court of Appeal did not provide a detailed analysis of evidence and did not refute the local court’s arguments about the absence of signs of banditry.
– The cassation instance court pointed out procedural violations in the Court of Appeal’s decision.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the verdict of the Court of Appeal and appointed a new review in the Court of Appeal with the selection of a preventive measure in the form of detention for all defendants for a period of 60 days.
Case No. 320/10183/22 dated 10/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the decision of the Petrivka Village Council on approving technical documentation for the normative monetary valuation of lands in Lyutizh village.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Decision No. 397 is a regulatory act, as:
– It was adopted by an authorized body
– It applies to an indefinite circle of persons
– It establishes general rules for the normative monetary valuation of lands
– The Petrivka Village Council violated the procedure for adopting a regulatory act – did not publish the draft decision and did not provide an opportunity to submit comments
3. Court decision:
– Declare Decision No. 397 unlawful
– Cancel extracts about the normative monetary valuation of land plots from March 26, 2024
Important: The court confirmed previous judicial practice regarding regulatory acts of local self-government bodies in the field of land valuation.
Case No. 344/15512/21 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_9, who is accused of committing violent acts against his wife, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, torture, and violation of housing inviolability.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court found that the local and appellate courts unreasonably applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code on imposing a milder punishment. The court believes that the circumstances recognized by the courts as mitigating (partial admission of guilt, young age) do not actually indicate a significantly reduced degree of social danger of the person. Moreover, the pre-trial report indicates a high risk of repeated criminal offense.
Court decision: Cancel the ruling of the Court of Appeal and appoint a new review in the appellate court with instructions to carefully re-evaluate the evidence and circumstances of sentencing.
Case No. 911/2395/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office is attempting to claim two forestry land plots from LLC “Nova Koncha-Zaspa Deluxe”, asserting the illegality of their alienation.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The claims are interconnected by the basis of origin (RDA order dated 30.09.2010), relate to land plots adjacent to each other
– Combining the claims corresponds to the principle of procedural economy
– Courts of previous instances incorrectlyHere is the translation:
but returned the statement of claim, violating procedural norms
3. Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case to the local commercial court to resolve the issue of initiating proceedings.
Case No. 320/7610/22 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recalculation of pension for a participant in the liquidation of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident from 66% to 61% of monetary provision.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly deprived the defendant of the right to appeal, without considering his motion to restore the procedural term. The court emphasized that the right to appeal court decisions is a component of a person’s constitutional right to judicial protection, and a formal approach should not impede the realization of this right.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court’s ruling, and send the case for a new review to the appellate instance.
Case No. 991/7253/23 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint by the defense counsel against the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court refusing to open appellate proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court carefully studied the case materials and concluded that the appellate instance correctly refused to open appellate proceedings. The court believes that the grounds for appealing the decision, provided by the defense counsel, do not contain substantial legal grounds for reviewing the previous ruling. The decision of the appellate chamber complies with procedural norms and does not violate the rights of the defendant.
Court Decision: Leave the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court unchanged, and the cassation complaint of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
Case No. 910/76/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring ownership documents of Ukrtelekom Joint Stock Company for real estate in Kyiv as illegal.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court partially satisfied Ukrtelekom’s cassation complaint, canceling previous decisions regarding the recognition of ownership rights to the ATS-512 technical building. The court found that part of the property registration documents requires review, but did not completely cancel previous decisions. At the same time, the court paid special attention to the need for correct distribution of court costs among process participants.
Court Decision: Recover from the Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office in favor of Ukrtelekom 17,177.60 UAH of court fee paid for filing a cassation complaint.
Case No. 420/10968/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a logging permit issued for selective sanitary logging within the Kuyalnytskyi National Nature Park.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The logging permit was issued without obtaining permission and approving limits for natural resource use, which violates legislation on the nature reserve fund
– The creation of the Kuyalnytskyi National Nature Park by Presidential Decree means that the territory is subject to special protection
– The absence of established park boundaries on the ground does not cancel the need to comply with the special regime of natural resource use
3. Court Decision: Cancel the logging permit as unlawful.
Key Conclusion: Special use of natural resources within the nature reserve fund requires special permission and limitation, withoutTranslation:
Depending on the stage of territory registration.
Case No. 420/27736/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of the right to perform construction works for a residential house on a land plot of 302 sq.m.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The State Architectural and Construction Control Department did not follow the legally established procedure of state architectural and construction control before appealing to court.
2. Existing violations of construction norms (non-compliance with land plot area) are not grounds for terminating the right to construction works.
3. The law does not require the control body to conduct an inspection if the inaccuracy of data is not obvious.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 752/6963/23 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of a court decision regarding a person who committed a robbery during martial law.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court drew attention to the improper substantiation by lower courts of Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Court emphasized that mitigating punishment requires the presence of several significant circumstances that substantially reduce the social danger of the crime. Moreover, exemption from serving punishment with probation must be clearly motivated in terms of achieving punishment goals and crime prevention.
Court Decision: Revoke the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and assign a new review in the appellate court, taking into account the provided recommendations.
Case No. 523/1767/20 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings in a case of economic crimes and money laundering.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that lower courts incorrectly applied procedural norms when closing the criminal case. First, for criminal proceedings initiated before March 16, 2018, extending pre-trial investigation terms falls under the prosecutor’s competence. Second, provisions on closing proceedings under paragraph 10 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to cases initiated before March 16, 2018.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions on closing criminal proceedings and assign a new review in the court of first instance.
Case No. 560/1516/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging decisions of the National Academy of the State Border Guard Service and Khmelnytskyi City Council regarding cancellation of a previously adopted decision on housing provision and inclusion of an apartment in the service housing fund.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The housing commission decision of 12.07.2022 to cancel the previous decision on housing provision for PERSON_1 was made based on a court decision that was subsequently revoked.
2. By resolution of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal dated 11.04.2023, the State Border Guard Service Administration was obliged to approve the list of housing distribution for PERSON_1.
3. Non-execution of the court decision and maintaining the contested decision of 12.07.2022 contradicts the principle of mandatory execution of court decisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing as unlawful the housing commission decision of 12.07.2022 on cancelling housing provision and the Khmelnytskyi City Council decision on including the apartment in the service housing fund.
<a href=”https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1Case No. 920/604/23 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Recognition of Additional Creditor Claims by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Sumy Oblast to LLC “Sumy Machine-Building Scientific and Production Association” for the amount of UAH 33,988,199.56 of accrued penalty for tax liabilities of 2016.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that obligations arising before 01/03/2020 are not subject to the moratorium on penalty accrual. Second, the right to accrue penalties arose for the controlling body back in 2016, therefore, the provisions on cancellation of penalties after 1095 days do not apply. Third, when accruing penalties on debt that arose before 2017, legislative provisions in effect at the time of debt origin are lawfully applied, including penalty accrual at 120% of the NBU discount rate.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances and denied the cassation appeal of the Legal Association “Legal Assistance Group”.
Case No. 910/2810/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Invalidation of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision on violation of economic competition legislation and imposition of a fine.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the legal assistance agreement and found that not all claimed expenses are necessary and reasonable.
2. The Supreme Court considered the criteria of reality and reasonableness of legal assistance expenses, including the volume of services provided, case complexity, and time spent by the lawyer.
3. The court noted that the purpose of expense recovery is to compensate for incurred losses, not to provide additional enrichment to the party.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the application of LLC “BASF T.O.V.” and recover from the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine UAH 50,000 of court expenses for legal assistance instead of the claimed UAH 263,454.60, and deny recovery of the “success fee”.
Case No. 904/4027/22 dated 11/03/2025
1. Subject of the Dispute: Imposing subsidiary liability on the founder of LLC “PROBILD” in the bankruptcy case for the amount of UAH 1,022,909.00.
2. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court believes that the appellate court unjustifiably suspended the proceedings due to the defendant’s service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court established that:
– The fact of a person’s service in the Armed Forces is not sufficient grounds for suspending proceedings
– It has not been proven that the military unit is actually transferred to martial law
– The defendant had the opportunity to participate in the process through a lawyer
3. Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling on suspension of proceedings and send the case for new consideration.
Case No. 320/34385/23 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv regarding the enterprise “Avvelum”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous judicial instances correctly assessed the evidence and adhered to tax legislation norms. The panel of judges established that the challenged tax notifications-decisions lack sufficient legal grounds. The tax authority’s argumentation was not convincing and did not prove the unlawfulness of the taxpayer’s actions.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous judicial instances, completely rejecting the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv.
