Case No. 320/10602/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging a tax notification-decision issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv against LLC “SPACESIX”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous judicial instances (Kyiv Administrative District Court and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal) correctly assessed the evidence and adhered to tax legislation norms. The panel of judges established that there are no grounds for canceling or modifying the previous court decisions, as they are based on current legislation and fully investigate the case circumstances. The arguments of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service do not contain convincing evidence of the illegality of previous court decisions.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the previous judicial instances.
Case No. 240/18584/22 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging tax notification-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Zhytomyr Region regarding LLC “Construction Alliance Montageproject”.
The court carefully analyzed the parties’ arguments and established that the tax notification-decisions were issued without proper legal grounds. The panel of judges paid special attention to the procedure for calculating tax obligations and the tax authority’s compliance with the procedure established by law. The court recognized that the actions of the tax authority violate the taxpayer’s rights and do not correspond to the principles of fairness and legality.
The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged, supporting the taxpayer’s position and fully satisfying their requirements to cancel the tax notification-decisions.
Case No. 903/497/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Collection of license fees in the gambling sector from LLC “Gambling Empire” in favor of the state.
Main arguments of the court:
– KRAIL is a state authority that controls budget payment receipts
– Legal relations have a public-legal, not economic nature
– KRAIL cannot dispose of funds, but only controls their receipt
– The dispute is subject to administrative, not economic proceedings
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Important: The court clearly distinguished public-legal and economic legal relations, indicating the specifics of KRAIL’s status.
Case No. 910/2201/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring invalid the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision to grant SMART HOLDING permission to purchase shares of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo”.
Main arguments of the court:
– An invalid transaction (share purchase and sale agreement) on which the decision was based cannot be a basis for a substantiated AMC decision.
– The AMC body must act within the law, evaluating all case circumstances, not just the economic effect of concentration.
– Recognizing the transaction invalid is a significant circumstance unknown to the AMC when making the initial decision.
Court decision:
– Declare the AMC decision dated 14.12.2023 No. 352-r invalid.
– Oblige the AMC to re-examine JSC “Kharkivoblenergo’s” application for reviewing the concentration permit.
Key thesis: An invalid transaction cannot be a basis for a state authority’s decision, even if the economic consequences of concentration seem positive.Case No. 990/230/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Actions of the High Council of Justice Regarding Non-Inclusion of Half the Period of Technical College Education in Judicial Work Experience.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The right to include work experience qualifying for retirement is granted only for higher legal educational institutions where a person obtained education at a qualification level corresponding to the requirements for a judicial candidate.
2. The educational qualification level of “junior specialist” did not provide the right to be recommended for a judicial position.
3. Studies at a technical college, which was previously a secondary specialized institution, cannot be equated to studies at a full-fledged higher educational institution.
Court Decision: To leave appellate complaints unsatisfied and the first instance court decision unchanged.
Case No. 759/1001/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Debt Recovery under a Loan Agreement for USD 79,600.00, Secured by a Surety Agreement.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court established that the loan agreement dated May 28, 2021, is valid and notarized. Second, the plaintiff provided appropriate evidence of contractual obligations for USD 83,200.00. Third, the defendants did not refute the loan receipt or challenge the contract’s existence. Additionally, the court established that only USD 3,600.00 of the total debt was repaid.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision to recover UAH 2,910,860.56 from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 904/5028/20 (203/1014/19) dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Rights to Premises in a Commercial and Office Center and Related Claims.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the plaintiff entered into shared participation agreements with LLC “Konsol LTD” in 2010 regarding shares in the construction of a commercial and office center.
2. Developer rights were consecutively transferred from LLC “Lux” to Housing Construction Cooperative “City Center”, and then to LLC “Delmar Lux”, but the plaintiff had no contractual relations with the latter.
3. LLC “Konsol LTD” did not fulfill its obligations to the plaintiff while in bankruptcy proceedings, therefore the only liable entities remain LLC “Konsol LTD” and LLC “BC Konsol-Stroi LTD”.
Court Decision: Reject the claim as the plaintiff filed claims against an improper defendant (LLC “Delmar Lux”), with whom it has no contractual relations.
Case No. 120/2466/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions Reducing VAT Refund and Accruing Additional Tax Obligations for Private Joint-Stock Company “Vinnytsia Oil and Fat Plant”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Raw material losses during sunflower processing are an integral part of the technological process and do not require separate VAT taxation.
2. The company documentarily confirmed the use of inventory in economic activities through primary documents, turnover-balance sheets, and other accounting documents.
3. Economic transactions with counterparties have a real nature, as confirmed by primary documents and actual asset movement.
Court Decision: Maintain the previous instances’ decisions canceling tax notifications-decisions and satisfying the Company’s claim.Case No. 420/35189/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging Decisions of the State Tax Service of Ukraine Regarding Tax Liabilities for LLC “ALMATIN-KYIV PLUS”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the decision of the appellate administrative court is unfounded. The panel of judges established procedural violations in the consideration of the case by the lower court, which significantly impact the case outcome. The Supreme Court recognized that the initial decision of the Odesa District Administrative Court was made in compliance with all legal norms.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC “ALMATIN-KYIV PLUS”, canceling the resolution of the appellate administrative court and upholding the decision of the district administrative court in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 5015/118/11 (914/2065/20) dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Set-off of Counterclaim Homogeneous Requirements between LLC “Ukravtozapchastyna” and LLC “Management Company “Lviv Forklift”” in a bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that as early as 2010, a set-off of counterclaims for the amount of 870,700.68 UAH was actually carried out between the companies, confirmed by a set-off protocol and reconciliation act.
2. The creditors’ committee decision dated 21.10.2020 confirmed the correctness and expediency of such set-off in the interests of the bankrupt and its creditors.
3. The court took into account that at the time of set-off, there were no outstanding claims from other creditors, and therefore the rights of other participants in the process are not violated.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision on set-off of counterclaims for 870,700.68 UAH between LLC “Ukravtozapchastyna” and LLC “Management Company “Lviv Forklift””.
Case No. 906/41/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Court Expenses for Professional Legal Assistance in Cassation Proceedings in a Commercial Case.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court thoroughly analyzed the criteria for determining court expenses, including their proportionality, reasonableness, and necessity. Second, the panel of judges found that the expenses claimed by LLC “Ukr-Dor-Service” in the amount of 80,000 UAH are excessive relative to the actual volume of legal services provided. Third, the court considered the objections of PE “Avtomahistral” regarding the disproportionality of expenses and the scope of procedural actions.
Court Decision: To recover from PE “Avtomahistral” in favor of LLC “Ukr-Dor-Service” 15,000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance, which constitutes 18.75% of the initially claimed amount.
Case No. 460/4783/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring Actions of the Pension Fund Illegal Regarding Refusal to Recalculate Pension with Indexation in 2022-2024.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The procedure for pension indexation defined by a by-law does not comply with the Pension Insurance Law.
2. Indexation should apply the average salary indicator directly considered when pension was assigned.
3. The right to indexation is not absolute and is limited by the statute of limitations – 6 months.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from 06.02.2024 and from 01.03.2024 using the respective coefficients.
Case No. 160/31127/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring Illegal the Pension Fund’s Refusal to Assign a Pension for Years of Service to an Employee of the Cri2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Law on the State Penitentiary Service provides for preferential service years calculation (1 month of service counted as 40 days)
– Preferential calculation does not change the actual service duration, but accelerates the right to pension
– The plaintiff has a preferential service of 42 years, which gives the right to pension assignment
3. Court decision: Satisfy the claim and oblige the Pension Fund to assign a pension for service years from 31.08.2023.
: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of preferential service years calculation procedure.
Case No. 620/8157/24 from 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging actions of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernihiv region regarding refusal to conduct pension indexation.
Main arguments of the court:
1) Procedure No. 124 does not comply with part two of Article 42 of Law No. 1058-IV, as it differently defines the indicator to be increased by indexation coefficients.
2) When recalculating pensions, the average wage indicator directly used for calculating the plaintiff’s pension should be applied.
3) The right to indexation is not absolute and is limited by the statute of limitations – 6 months.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the claim, recognizing the Pension Fund’s actions regarding refusal to index pension from 05.12.2023 as unlawful and obliging to recalculate the pension taking into account indexation coefficients.
Case No. 480/2331/24 from 10/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recalculation and payment of pension for the period from 2002 to 06.10.2022, taking into account additional work periods.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff missed the established six-month period for appealing to court, as they had previously filed similar claims for pension recalculation. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff could have known about the state of their rights earlier, as they receive a pension monthly, and their reference to recently learning about rights violation is unfounded.
Court decision: Dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 420/9344/24 from 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the decision of the Podilskyi City Council on amending the Compensation Program for Preferential Transportation, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, restricts pensioners’ rights to free travel.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff did not prove direct violation of their personal rights, as they have never encountered a refusal of preferential travel.
2. The city council’s decision does not deprive pensioners of the right to free travel, but only establishes the procedure for compensating carriers.
3. Previous instance courts did not conduct a full analysis of changes in the Program and did not clarify whether the rights of privileged categories of citizens are actually restricted.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to thoroughly examine the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 420/35189/23 from 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of tax invoices for LLC “ALMATIN-KYIV PLUS”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The tax authority did not provide specific grounds for which documents were compiled with violations of legislation
– The provided list of documents is sufficient to confirm the reality of economic transactions
– The controlling body should not conduct a full analysis of economic transactions at the registration stageAdditional Tax Invoice
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “ALMATIN-KYIV PLUS”, cancel the appellate court resolution and uphold the first instance court decision on tax invoice registration.
The Supreme Court consistently protects taxpayers’ rights, requiring controlling authorities to clearly substantiate their decisions.
Case No. 676/76/22 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of a land plot with an area of 0.0082 hectares, which is part of the nature reserve fund lands of the Podilski Tovtry National Nature Park.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The disputed land plot is located in a nature reserve fund territory with a special legal protection regime.
2. Transfer of the land plot into private ownership for gardening contradicts legislation on nature reserve fund.
3. The land plot owner PERSON_1 should have known about its special status and could not have legally acquired it.
Court Decision: Oblige PERSON_1 to return to the state a land plot portion of 0.0082 hectares and cancel the state registration of the land plot.
Case No. 160/3872/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the inaction of the state executive service regarding the arrest of funds in a special account.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s decision to return the appellate appeal due to improper elimination of deficiencies. The court established that the electronic ruling on leaving the appeal without movement was delivered on 19.04.2024 at 21:55, and is therefore considered served on 22.04.2024, with the deadline for eliminating deficiencies ending on 02.05.2024. The respondent’s arguments about technical failures and untimely receipt of the ruling were deemed unfounded due to lack of evidence.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal of the Kryvyi Rih State Executive Service without satisfaction, and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 9901/424/21 dated 27/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the inaction of the President of Ukraine regarding non-issuance of a decree on appointing a judge to the Svalyava District Court of Zakarpattia Oblast.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The President of Ukraine is obligated to issue a decree on judge appointment within 30 days after receiving the submission from the High Council of Justice.
2. The President’s inaction is a continuing offense that can be challenged at any time.
3. The statute of limitations should not serve as a mechanism for avoiding responsibility for non-performance of duties.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate appeal of the President of Ukraine without satisfaction and support the previous instance’s decision recognizing the inaction as unlawful.
Case No. 916/4412/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages from a transport company in the amount of 122,892 euros for corn damage during prolonged storage in wagons.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The company filed a claim against an improper defendant – the transport company, with which it has no direct contractual relations.
2. The actual respondent should have been the Enterprise that concluded the transportation contract and had direct obligations to the Company.
3. The transport company acted within its contract with the Enterprise and did not violate the Company’s rights.
Court Decision: Reject the claim due to improper subject composition of case participants, as the claim was filed against the wrong party responsible forHere is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
with the claim.
Case No. 826/14137/16 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Public Joint Stock Company “Ukrnafta” challenges tax notifications-decisions of the Pryluky United State Tax Inspectorate.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in previous court decisions that do not allow a comprehensive and complete investigation of the case circumstances. The court believes that previous instances did not sufficiently investigate the evidence and arguments of the parties. The panel of judges concluded that the case requires additional study and a new review by the court of first instance.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied Ukrnafta’s cassation appeal, canceled previous court decisions, and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 947/6748/20 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from the borrower and guarantor.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The bank provided a loan to PERSON_1 in the amount of 114,248.78 USD on June 26, 2008, with a repayment term until June 23, 2029.
2. PERSON_2 entered into a guarantee agreement that ensures the fulfillment of the borrower’s obligations.
3. As of March 18, 2020, the debt amounted to 14,158.64 USD and 206,220.86 UAH, consisting of overdue loan, interest, and accrued penalties.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and denied the bank’s cassation appeals, confirming the legitimacy of debt recovery from the borrower and guarantor.
Case No. 914/622/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Dispute about removing obstacles in using communal property and vacating unauthorized occupied non-residential premises.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The lease agreement between KP “Rynok” and Individual Entrepreneur Cherevatyi expired on 31.12.2023, but during martial law, a special procedure for lease agreement extension applies.
2. To not extend the agreement, the balance holder must send an official notification with justification of their needs 30 days in advance.
3. The letter from KP “Rynok” dated 24.11.2023 does not meet legislative requirements as it does not contain a clear justification for not extending the agreement.
Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied Individual Entrepreneur Cherevatyi’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the first instance court’s decision to reject KP “Rynok’s” claim.
Case No. 916/2453/24 dated 04/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Dispute about opening bankruptcy proceedings for LLC “Odesagas-Postachannia” based on the application by JSC “Ukrgazbank”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established that the debtor artificially changed its location after the creditor filed a bankruptcy application, attempting to create obstacles for opening proceedings. At the same time, the court recognized that there is no actual dispute about the right between the creditor and the debtor, as the debtor simultaneously recognized monetary claims in another reorganization case.
3. Court decision: Reject the debtor’s cassation appeal and support the appellate court’s decision to send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 1-1000/2011 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – cassation appeal by the victim against court decisions on releasing a group of persons from criminal liability for a series of economic crimes.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, the victimHere is the translation:
She filed a cassation complaint with an expired statutory time limit; secondly, she did not obtain prior court permission to restore the procedural time limit, which is a mandatory condition for cassation appeal; thirdly, restoration of procedural time limits is not within the competence of the cassation instance.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the cassation complaint without consideration, recognizing it as non-reviewable due to procedural violations.
Case No. 1-1000/2011 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation complaint by the victim against court decisions on exemption from criminal liability for a group of persons for a series of economic crimes.
The court was guided by several key arguments: first, the victim filed a cassation complaint with an expired statutory time limit; second, the issue of restoring the procedural time limit should be resolved by the court of first instance, not the cassation court; third, to restore the cassation appeal time limit, a corresponding court decision from the court that considered the case is necessary.
The Supreme Court decided to leave the cassation complaint without consideration, recognizing it as non-reviewable due to procedural violations.
Case No. 320/22901/23 dated 12/03/2025
The case concerns appealing an order of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Kyiv Oblast, filed by PERSON_1.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate administrative court correctly assessed the evidence and circumstances of the case. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court established that the challenged order violates the plaintiff’s rights and does not comply with legislative requirements. The court took into account all arguments of the parties and conducted a detailed legal analysis of the legal grounds for appealing the administrative act.
The Supreme Court left the police’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the appellate administrative court’s decision to declare the order unlawful.
Case No. 926/927/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Recognition of the right of permanent land use by OSBB “Ruska, 219-D” instead of the Main Directorate of the National Police.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Co-owners of a multi-apartment building have the right to register a land plot, but only within the limits necessary for house maintenance.
2. The plaintiff did not provide adequate evidence regarding the exact size of the land plot and the procedure for its registration.
3. The land plot was planned for the construction of not just one, but two residential buildings, therefore its complete transfer to OSBB is premature.
Court decision: Deny OSBB “Ruska, 219-D” in satisfying the claim to cancel the right of permanent land use by the Main Directorate of the National Police.
The cassation complaint of OSBB was left unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 146/1162/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim to exclude information about the father from the child’s birth certificate.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court confirmed that two independent molecular genetic examinations with a probability of over 99.99% proved the biological paternity of the plaintiff. The court was guided by the principle of prioritizing the child’s interests and the constitutional norm of equal rights of children regardless of origin. DNA testing is the most accurate scientific method of establishing paternity, which significantly outweighs other evidence.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisionsDecision and denied the cassation appeal, thereby confirming the plaintiff’s paternity.
Case No. 910/18499/20 (910/18305/23) dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of the contract and application of consequences of invalidity of the transaction between LLC “Khimreaktiv” and PJSC “Insurance Company “Omega”.
The court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the contract contains signs of illegality. Key arguments were evidence of violation of transaction conclusion conditions and the presence of significant procedural violations. The court established that the actions of the parties did not correspond to the principles of good faith and reasonableness in conducting economic activity.
The Supreme Court left the insurance company’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous court decisions on declaring the contract invalid.
Case No. 756/4527/22 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Claiming an apartment that was sold by a financial company to repay credit debt.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The mortgage agreement provided for the possibility of out-of-court settlement and sale of property, but without observing all necessary procedures
– IMPORTANT: The financial company violated the mortgage agreement terms, as it did not conclude a separate agreement on the right to sell the property
– The apartment purchaser (PERSON_2) is a bona fide buyer, as they were unaware of possible restrictions when acquiring real estate
– Claiming the apartment from a bona fide purchaser would create a disproportionate and excessive burden for them
3. Court decision: Deny the claim for apartment recovery, leaving the ownership right with the purchaser.
Case No. 761/27746/21 dated 19/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Kyiv City Council challenges the state registration of ownership rights of PERSON_1 for a non-residential building with an area of 106.7 sq. m, located on a land plot in the central historical area of Kyiv.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The building is an unauthorized construction, as it was erected without necessary permits and approvals
– State registration of ownership rights was carried out with violations of legislation
– The land plot is located within the historical area of the city, which imposes additional restrictions on construction
– There are no documents confirming the legality of real estate registration
3. Court decision: Cancel the state registrar’s decision on registration of ownership rights of PERSON_1 for the non-residential building, but deny termination of ownership rights.
The court decision clearly demonstrates a principled position on protecting public interests in urban planning and land relations.
Case No. 464/5873/23 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict regarding a person who committed a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of road safety rules).
Main arguments of the court: The court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, taking into account the case circumstances and the convicted person. The panel of judges concluded that the imposed punishment requires adjustment considering the possibility of correcting the person without actual serving of the sentence. The court took into account mitigating circumstances and made a decision to release from serving the main punishment with probation.
Court decision: Modify the verdict of the Lviv Court of Appeal, sentencing PERSON_7 to imprisonment for 3 years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 1 year, but releaRelease from serving the main punishment with probation for a period of 1 year with the imposition of legally prescribed obligations.
Case No. 910/1954/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of 1,177,747,319.49 UAH between Limited Liability Company “Kirovohrad Regional Power Supply Company” and State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in a case concerning power supply.
The court carefully analyzed all circumstances of the case and concluded that previous court decisions are lawful. The main arguments were details of contractual relations between the parties, in particular, settlement conditions and interpretation of specific contract provisions. The panel of judges thoroughly examined all provided evidence and concluded that there are no grounds for changing or canceling previous court decisions.
The court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and confirmed the decisions of previous instances.
Case No. 320/22901/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging orders on bringing a police officer to disciplinary responsibility and dismissal in connection with receiving an unlawful benefit and service discipline violations.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Disciplinary and criminal liability are separate types of legal liability, therefore the existence of criminal proceedings does not exclude the possibility of applying disciplinary punishment.
2. The police officer’s dismissal occurred due to service discipline violations, not on suspicion of committing a crime.
3. The court thoroughly analyzed evidence provided during the service investigation and concluded that they do not unequivocally confirm the commission of a disciplinary offense, especially regarding weapon possession.
Court decision: Leave unchanged the resolution of the appellate administrative court on canceling orders on bringing a police officer to disciplinary responsibility and dismissal.
Case No. 500/5548/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Ternopil City Council challenges the State Audit Service’s requirement to eliminate identified violations and requests suspension of its effect.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the plaintiff did not provide any specific evidence of real threat to its rights from the State Audit Service’s requirement.
2. Previous instances did not properly substantiate the necessity of suspending the requirement in full.
3. Statements about “obvious danger” of causing damage are unfounded and not confirmed by any evidence.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled decisions of previous instances and denied Ternopil City Council’s application for securing the claim.
Case No. 161/620/19 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case about robbery attacks by a group of persons on several residential properties with the aim of seizing property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the defendants’ actions are qualified specifically as robbery, not theft that escalated into robbery. This is confirmed by:
– Application of violence dangerous to victims’ life and health
– Presence of murder threats
– Intrusion into housing by a group of persons
– Intent to seize property through violence
2. The court thoroughly analyzed evidence and concluded about the proven guilt of the defendants.
3. The court refuted defense arguments about absence of crime elements and procedural norm violations.
Court decision: Leave unchanged verdicts of previous instances, convicting the defendants for robbery under parts 3 and 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.Here is the translation of the legal text:
Case No. 904/2796/22 (904/314/23) dated 05/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Joint Stock Company “PrivatBank” attempted to invalidate the trademark certificate for “PrivatLeasing” owned by LLC “RealAgroLeasing”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the plaintiff was aware of the use of the “PrivatLeasing” trademark much earlier than claimed, specifically since 2015. Moreover, the court found evidence that the bank was aware of the connection between LLC “Privat Leasing” and PrivatBank as early as December 2016. The plaintiff missed the three-year statute of limitations and did not provide any convincing evidence of valid reasons for such omission.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and denied PrivatBank’s claim due to the statute of limitations expiration.
Case No. 905/1965/19 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Approval of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance sheet for JSC “K.Energo” in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The liquidator performed all necessary actions to identify the debtor’s assets: sent inquiries to registering authorities, conducted inventory, and analyzed the company’s financial and economic activities.
2. Cession agreements referenced by creditors are valid, and claims transferred to KP “Kyivteploenergo” are not an asset of JSC “K.Energo”.
3. Using the unified automated system of executive proceedings allows obtaining complete information about executive proceedings without additional requests.
Court Decision: Cassation complaints to be left unsatisfied, and court decisions of previous instances to remain unchanged.
Case No. 904/2750/23 dated 12/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: A prosecutor on behalf of Novomoskovsk City Council demanded demolition of unauthorized structures on a water fund land plot and termination of individual entrepreneur M. Huseynova’s ownership of these objects.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Disputed buildings are located in the coastal protection zone of the Samara River without land allocation and necessary permits
– Objects constitute unauthorized construction according to Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine
– State registration of ownership of unauthorized construction does not change its legal regime
– Land plot owner has the right to demand demolition of illegal structures
3. Court Decision: Prosecutor’s claim fully satisfied – buildings to be demolished and individual entrepreneur M. Huseynova’s ownership of disputed objects terminated.
Case No. 120/19292/23 dated 12/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Military serviceman PERSON_1 challenges the inaction of a military unit regarding non-payment of additional remuneration of 100,000 hryvnias for participation in combat operations.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Military unit certificate No. 2 dated 05.08.2022 confirms plaintiff’s participation in combat operations from 07.04.2022 to 25.06.2022
– Appellate court improperly examined evidence and did not verify primary documents
– Violation of document transfer procedure between military units cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to remuneration
– Burden of proving the legitimacy of the decision is on the respondent
3. Court Decision: Cassation complaint satisfied, appellate court ruling canceled, case referred for new consideration to the appellate administrative court.Case No. 925/574/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Distribution of court expenses for professional legal assistance in a land plot case.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the commercial court without waiting for the appellate court’s decision on a similar case in civil proceedings.
2. The court established that the plaintiff’s actions in filing the lawsuit were unjustified, as he violated procedural norms.
3. The legal assistance expenses of the defendant (12,000 UAH) were recognized by the court as real, substantiated, and proportionate to the work performed.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, to recover from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant 12,000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 9901/191/21 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Presidential Decree on imposing sanctions on LLC “GEO CONNECT”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Sanctions were applied on legal grounds in accordance with the Law “On Sanctions”, which allows restricting the rights of persons in case of a threat to national interests.
2. The Security Service of Ukraine provided evidence of a potential threat to national interests from the company, which is grounds for imposing sanctions.
3. State interference with the company’s property rights is proportional and has a legitimate purpose of protecting Ukraine’s national security.
Court Decision: To deny the lawsuit of LLC “GEO CONNECT” to cancel sanctions.
Case No. 240/25897/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legitimacy of limiting the maximum pension size assigned to a serviceman based on the Law “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service”.
Main Court Arguments: First, the Constitutional Court previously recognized as unconstitutional provisions on limiting military pensions, as this violates their social guarantees. Second, in this case, there is no evidence that the pension authority actually limited the plaintiff’s maximum pension size. Third, pension payment was carried out in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision from October 2022 without restrictions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the previous court instances’ decision to deny the lawsuit.
Case No. 922/4650/23 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv Region against Limited Liability Company “Iron Walls” in a bankruptcy case.
Main Court Arguments: The court thoroughly analyzed the procedural rules for appealing court decisions in bankruptcy cases. It established that the ruling on the results of considering a separate creditor’s claims cannot be appealed separately from the commercial court’s ruling issued following the preliminary hearing. The appellate court correctly returned the tax service’s appellate complaint, as the complainant violated the legally established procedure for appealing a court decision.
Court Decision: To leave the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.
Case No. 916/626/18 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute between JSC “Ukrainian Railways” and LLC “Cargo Transport Company” regarding the return of half-wagons and fulfillment of service agreement conditions.
Main Court Arguments:
– The railway missed the 10-day st[atutory period]Appeal Period for Appealing the Decision of the Court of First Instance
– Reference to the Chief Lawyer Being on Sick Leave is Not a Valid Reason for Renewal of the Term
– The Railway Had the Opportunity to File an Appeal through Other Representatives
– Late Submission of the Complaint Depended Solely on the Will of the Complainant
3. Court Decision: Refuse JSC “Ukrainian Railways” in opening an appellate proceeding and leave the previous court order unchanged.
Case No. 140/2037/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Orders of the Ministry of Environmental Protection on Approving the Territory Organization Project of Kivertsi National Nature Park “Tsumanska Pushcha”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Functional zoning of the national nature park territory must be carried out in coordination with land plot owners.
– Previous instance courts did not properly verify the order adoption procedure and did not clarify whether the agricultural enterprise’s rights were observed when including its lands in the park.
– The Supreme Court deviates from previous practice regarding individual act review, indicating that such acts may concern land users’ rights.
3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for detailed examination of case circumstances.
Case No. 480/5673/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions and decisions on applying financial sanctions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Sumy Region.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the claim is identical to the previous case No. 480/12440/23, where the enterprise’s requirements were already denied.
2. The plaintiff is essentially attempting to re-challenge the same decisions by merely changing the argumentation wording.
3. In the previous case, all circumstances were already thoroughly investigated and the tax authority’s actions were verified for legitimacy.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 520/37952/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the Municipal Enterprise “Kharkivvodokanal” of debt for payment and delivery of privileged pensions for the period from June to November 2023.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that previous instance courts did not adhere to the principles of competitiveness and official clarification of case circumstances. In particular, they did not provide legal assessment of the parties’ arguments regarding pensioners’ privileged service length, did not request and investigate necessary evidence, which made it impossible to establish all factual case circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled previous instance decisions and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 904/4790/21 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of Economic Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region orders on recognizing monetary claims of PJSC “IC “Ingosstrakh” to LLC “Montana-Estate” in bankruptcy case under newly discovered circumstances.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court drew attention that invalidating the loan agreement was not a basis for automatic exclusion of creditor’s monetary claims from the register.
2. Previous instance courts did not fully investigate evidence regarding the indisputability of monetary claims and circumstances of funds receipt by the debtor.
3. Recognition of rightTranslation:
The invalidation of an act does not in itself affect the amount of the creditor’s claims and the debtor’s obligation to return funds.
Court Decision: Cancel the ruling of the local commercial court and the resolution of the appellate commercial court, and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 910/18583/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the cancellation of state registration of ownership rights, invalidation of electronic auction results and the contract.
Main Court Arguments: The court thoroughly analyzed the rules for distributing court expenses, particularly expenses for legal assistance. It considered the criteria of reasonableness, proportionality, and rationality of expenses, evaluated the provided evidence, and concluded that part of the expenses were justified. The court noted that the respondent (OSBB) did not object to the distribution of expenses and was guided by previous judicial practice regarding legal assistance compensation.
Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the application of PE “Ukrelektrobud” and recovered from OSBB “Sobranetska 140” in favor of the enterprise 6,975.00 UAH of court expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 905/1435/20 dated 12/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Termination of land lease agreement and its return to the owner due to systematic non-payment of rent.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– It was established that LLC “Osmostechnology” did not pay rent during 2016-2020, with arrears amounting to 228,068.60 UAH
– The court referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which determines that systematic complete non-payment of rent is grounds for contract termination
– The court took into account that the land plot is not actually used for its intended purpose and is located in the area of anti-terrorist operation
3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and transfer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for detailed examination of case circumstances.
The court deviated from previous judicial practice, applying a recent legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding interpretation of grounds for terminating land lease agreements.
Case No. 910/17902/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Military unit demanded that LLC “S.T.G.” pay a fine and replace low-quality fabric that does not meet the technical requirements of the contract.
Main Court Arguments: The court carefully analyzed all test protocols and concluded that the plaintiff did not prove improper contract execution by the respondent. In particular, forensic expertise confirmed the fabric’s compliance with technical requirements after one washing cycle, and different previous test results were related to the research methodology.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld previous court decisions and denied satisfaction of the Military unit’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/127/24 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges regarding a judge’s non-compliance with the occupied position.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The HQCJ decision on non-confirmation of a judge’s ability to administer justice has no independent legal consequences and is part of the qualification proceedings.
2. The final decision on dismissing a judge is made by the High Council of Justice, so the HQCJ decision can only be challenged after consideration by the HCJ.
3. Limitation of the right to judicial protection is legitimate and proportionate, since…
