Case No. 682/2436/22 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of ownership rights to a share of a residential house through inheritance after the husband’s death.
Key Court Arguments:
1. Plaintiff PERSON_1 is the wife of the deceased PERSON_3 and the sole legal heir.
2. She timely filed an application for accepting the inheritance on October 10, 2013, which is within the legally established six-month period.
3. The notary refused to issue a certificate of inheritance due to an alleged court dispute, which actually does not prevent inheritance registration.
Court Decision: Recognize PERSON_1’s ownership right to 64/100 parts of the residential house through legal inheritance.
Important: The court clearly adhered to the principle that the absence of an inheritance certificate does not deprive the heir of the right to property.
Case No. 909/131/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damage caused to the natural environment due to illegal tree cutting in the Carpathian National Nature Park.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The defendant, as a permanent forest user, is responsible for failing to ensure proper protection of forest plantations and protection of forests from illegal logging in the subordinate territory.
2. The courts established that part of the trees (14 dry standing spruces) were legally cut as part of a sanitary logging, while the rest of the trees were cut illegally.
3. The amount of damage was calculated based on official methods, taking into account the diameters of the cut trees, confirmed by expert opinions and specialists from the State Ecological Inspection.
Court Decision: Recover from the Carpathian National Nature Park in favor of the environmental protection fund 3,351,443.82 UAH in damages.
Case No. 910/87/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding recovery of legal assistance costs in appellate and cassation instances.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed procedural norms regarding the recovery of court expenses, particularly the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality of such expenses.
2. The Supreme Court established that the OSBB “Oazys 2016” complied with all procedural requirements when submitting evidence of legal assistance expenses.
3. The court recognized the defendant’s legal assistance expenses in the appellate instance of 22,500 UAH as justified but reduced the expenses in the cassation instance to 3,000 UAH due to the case’s low complexity.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and recover 3,000 UAH in court expenses from the plaintiff in favor of OSBB “Oazys 2016”.
Case No. 372/4508/21 dated 12/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Reclaiming immovable property (pharmacy premises and land plot) and declaring the mortgage agreement invalid.
2. Key Court Arguments:
– The property was removed from the owner PERSON_1’s possession as a result of invalid public auctions
– The owner has the right to reclaim the property from a good faith acquirer if it was removed against their will
– The issue of the statute of limitations’ start requires additional investigation by the appellate court
3. Court Decision: Cassation complaint partially satisfied, appellate court ruling canceled, case referred for new consideration.
Note: The court deviated from the previous position regarding the calculation of the statute of limitations in property reclamation cases.
Case No. 641/5791/15-ц dated 12/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Dispute about replacing the party in a case of debt collection under a credit agreement and foreclosure on the mortgage subject.
2. Key Court Arguments:
– The court confirmed the legitimacy of the procedural legal succession of the financial company “Pythagoras-Finance”Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
instead of the bank “Golden Gates” on the basis of a claim assignment agreement.
– The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of the legality of the transaction and the impossibility of evaluating the assignment agreement at the stage of party replacement.
– The Court indicated that there is no evidence of invalidating the assignment agreements, therefore there are no grounds for refusing legal succession.
3. Court decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court’s ruling, and keep the first instance court’s ruling on involving the legal successor in force.
Case No. 159/754/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovering a “Opel Vivaro” vehicle from the owner who claims that the car left his possession against his will.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff did not provide reliable evidence that the car physically left his possession due to theft or loss.
2. PERSON_2 is a bona fide acquirer, as he purchased the car under a compensated agreement, without knowing about possible previous violations.
3. The court took into account that PERSON_2 is a person with first-degree disability who uses the car for personal needs and has repaired it.
Court decision: Reject the claim for recovering the car from PERSON_2, as he is a bona fide acquirer.
Case No. 369/3839/19 dated 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court ruling:
Subject of dispute: Division of an apartment purchased by spouses during marriage with borrowed funds.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The apartment was purchased during the marriage, therefore it is presumed to be joint marital property.
2. The source of acquisition (borrowed funds) does not change the status of joint property.
3. The fact that one of the spouses paid off debts after the marriage dissolution does not affect the right to joint ownership.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and divide the apartment between the spouses equally – 1/2 share each.
Interestingly, the court clearly made it understood that even if one of the spouses independently pays off property debts after divorce, this does not mean that such property becomes their personal property.
Case No. 927/155/24 dated 26/02/2025
The case concerns a dispute over compensation for damage caused by the destruction of soybean crops on the land plots of the farm “Prydunaisky” due to improper use of herbicide.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Expertise established that soybean crops were damaged by the herbicide Laudis 30 WG, which is intended exclusively for corn treatment.
2. Defendants (LLC “Agricor Holding” and LLC “Digi Fly”) carried out treatment of adjacent land plots using unmanned aerial vehicles.
3. Evidence collected during criminal proceedings was recognized by the court as admissible.
The court decided to recover from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff 1,209,160 UAH of lost profits due to the destruction of soybean crops.
Case No. 904/5557/23 dated 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court ruling:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of penalties for late delivery of goods under a supply agreement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The defendant did not fulfill the contract terms and did not deliver the goods within the specified time
– The defendant provided a certificate from the Zaporizhzhia Chamber of Commerce and Industry about force majeure circumstances that made delivery impossible
– The court recognized the force majeure circumstances (restrictions on the manufacturer’s activities in Shandong province) as those that exempt the defendant from liability
– It was established that the plaintiff sent a delivery request not in the manner prescribed by the contract
3. Court decision: Reject the recovery of penalties from the defendant.
The court ruling demonstrates a detailed approach to analyzing force majeure circumstances and contract terms.
Case No. 361/10208/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject ofCase: Recognition of a Notary’s Executive Inscription as Non-Enforceable
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the executive inscription was made during a period when legislation did not provide for the possibility of making it based on a credit agreement concluded in a simple written form.
2. The court noted that during the case review, it was not proven that the credit agreement provided to the notary for the executive inscription was notarially certified.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of first instance improperly and on its own initiative reduced legal assistance expenses without the respondent’s petition, which violates the principles of adversarial and arbitration court proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation complaint, canceled the previous instances’ decisions regarding legal assistance expenses, and recovered 20,000 UAH of legal assistance expenses in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 914/466/23(523/9434/23) dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Private Executor’s Actions for Collecting Funds from a Debtor During a Bankruptcy Moratorium
Main Court Arguments:
1. The debtor’s property manager missed the legally established 10-day period for filing a complaint against the private executor’s actions.
2. The court proceeded from the presumption that the property manager should have known about the debtor’s rights violation at least since September 2024, when he had already addressed the Ministry of Justice.
3. The complainant did not provide convincing evidence that he learned about the violation of his rights only on 18.11.2024, as claimed.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 359/3977/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Proceedings Regarding Theft of Goods from a Store Valued at 1,061.69 UAH During Martial Law
Main Court Arguments: First, the court established that PERSON_6 fully admitted guilt, and the court correctly applied the simplified case review procedure. Second, the appellate court reasonably closed the criminal proceedings due to the loss of force of the law establishing the criminal unlawfulness of the act. Third, all procedural requirements during the case review were observed, including the rights of the accused and the principles of criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: Leave the Boryspil District Court’s verdict and the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 922/2179/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 3,497,050.84 UAH between LLC “Scientific and Production Enterprise ‘Railway Automation'” and KP “Kharkiv Metro”
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s cassation complaint and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the claims. The panel of judges established that previous court instances (local and appellate courts) correctly assessed the case circumstances and adhered to procedural norms. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the cassation complaint does not contain convincing arguments for reviewing previous court decisions.
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on one ground and left the cassation complaint of LLC “Scientific and Production Enterprise ‘Railway Automation'” unsatisfied, effectively confirming the correctness of previous court instances’ decisions.
Case No. 910/5875/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Assignment of Claim Rights Agreements between LLC “TOPAZ”, LLC “ACCESSIBLE FINANCES”, and JSC “OTP Bank” under a Credit Agreement
Main Court Arguments:
1. The disputed agreement is not a factoring agreement, as it does not contain signs of providing a financial service (loan or credit).
2. The difference between the nominal value of the claim right and the sale price does not indicate factoring.
3. The agreement is mixed, with elements…Here is the translation of the text:
Parties to the purchase and sale of claim rights and assignment of claim rights.
Court Decision: To leave the decisions of previous instances unchanged and deny the satisfaction of the claim to declare the contracts invalid.
Case No. 600/2736/22-а dated 13/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the conclusion of the State Audit Service of Ukraine regarding the violation of the public procurement procedure for automobile roads.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Tender participant LLC “SBU-77” provided a complete package of documents on the availability of equipment
– A cement distributor, which was not in the minimum list of equipment, cannot be grounds for disqualification
– The customer had no right to demand additional documents not provided for by law
3. Court decision: Leave the previous court decisions unchanged and deny the State Audit Service’s cassation appeal.
The court clearly adhered to the principle that formal reasons cannot be grounds for disqualifying a tender participant if he has actually proved his ability to perform the work.
Case No. 240/29926/23 dated 13/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to oblige the municipal enterprise to bring the anti-radiation shelter to a state of readiness for use.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Emergency Service (SES) does not have legally established powers to independently file such claims.
2. The prosecutor cannot replace the authority that should protect state interests if it has such an opportunity.
3. Even taking into account changes in legislation, the SES needs a clear legal basis for filing a lawsuit, which currently does not exist.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., the prosecutor’s claim remains unexamined.
Case No. 280/10878/23 dated 13/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to oblige LLC “SOTSFERA” to bring the civil protection shelter to readiness for use as intended.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The prosecutor did not prove that the authorities (SES, regional state administration, city council) cannot independently file a lawsuit
– Legislation does not give these bodies the direct right to file such claims
– The prosecutor can represent state interests only in exceptional cases when there is no other way to protect them
3. Court decision: Leave the claim unexamined, as the prosecutor did not substantiate the impossibility of other authorities filing a lawsuit.
Important: The court emphasized that the prosecutor’s office is not an alternative way of protecting state interests, but only a subsidiary mechanism.
Case No. 351/2390/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation review of a criminal case against PERSON_7, accused of robbery (Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court discovered procedural violations in previous court decisions that do not allow a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case. The court believes that the appellate court incorrectly assessed the circumstances of the case and did not provide proper legal assessment of the evidence. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new appellate review to further study all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Court decision: The cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling was canceled, a new review was appointed in the appellate court, and a preventive measure in the form of detention was chosen for 60 days.
Case No. 461/9003/20 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in criminal proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: SupremeThe Supreme Court established that the appellate court incorrectly closed the proceedings on PERSON_1’s application for review of a court decision. The appellate court essentially examined the application on its merits, but instead of making a decision in accordance with procedural law, simply closed the proceedings and returned the application. This violates the person’s right to access to justice and the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, revoked the resolution of the Lviv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 607/4124/23 dated 11/03/2025
1. Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings against a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation who supported the decision to recognize “DPR” and “LPR” and voted for treaties with these entities.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– PERSON_6, as a deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, deliberately voted for decisions aimed at changing the borders of Ukraine
– His actions were intentional and carried out in prior conspiracy with other deputies
– The voting led to real serious consequences – military invasion and loss of life
– He violated international treaties and principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of states
3. Court decision: Recognize PERSON_6 guilty under Art. 110 part 3 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentence him to 15 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 922/1778/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of advance payment under a contract for reconstruction of an overhead power line due to non-performance of work.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Expiration of the contract term is not a basis for termination of parties’ obligations, especially financial ones.
2. Existence of force majeure circumstances (war) does not exempt the contractor from the obligation to return the advance, but only prevents the imposition of penalty sanctions.
3. The contractor did not perform work for the amount of the advance payment, therefore the advance is subject to return to the customer regardless of the reasons for non-performance of work.
Court decision: Recover from LLC “Ares-S” in favor of PJSC “Ukrenergo” an advance in the amount of 2,485,830.00 UAH.
Case No. 454/910/13-k dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of the investigating judge’s ruling on newly discovered circumstances in criminal proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court noted that the procedure for reviewing court decisions on newly discovered circumstances is clearly regulated by Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code with an exhaustive list of grounds. Second, PERSON_6 did not cite specific circumstances that could have influenced the previous court decision, but only tried to artificially initiate a new review of the case. Third, the Constitutional Court decision referenced by the applicant does not mean that any decision of the investigating judge can be reviewed.
Court decision: The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on PERSON_6’s complaint, as the challenged rulings are not subject to cassation appeal.
Case No. 120/6997/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the schedule of personal reception of citizens by the Pension Fund of Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court:
The court departed from the previous legal position regarding document signing. Now the signature must be after the main text of the document, which will prevent manipulation and distortion of content. Previously, graphic representation of the signature in other places of the document was allowed.
At the same time, the court considers that the appellate complaint was correctly returned due to the absence of a properly certified copy of the representative’s power of attorney. Procedural law requires that the power of attorney copy be certified by a notary or a judge’s signature.
Court decision: Partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal by changing the motivational part of the previous ruling, but without changing the main decision on return of the appeaTranslation:
Case No. 160/27307/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Order of the Main Tax Authority on Cancellation of License for Retail Tobacco Trade.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the plaintiff did not prove the grounds for securing the claim by suspending the license cancellation order.
2. Cancellation of the license for tobacco trade does not completely prevent the company’s economic activity, as it has other types of activities.
3. Entrepreneurial activity involves inherent risks, and temporary financial difficulties are not an unconditional basis for securing the claim.
Court Decision: Cancel previous instance decisions and reject the application for claim security.
Case No. 520/29699/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor demanded that a private joint-stock company bring its civil protection shelter to proper technical condition.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Legislation does not provide the State Emergency Service (SES) with the right to independently file lawsuits about bringing protective structures to readiness.
2. The prosecutor identified SES as the body protecting state interests, which does not have the right to be a plaintiff in such a case.
3. The special period of martial law does not cancel the principle of legality and the requirement to act within the powers granted by law.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 280/1998/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling a tax notification-decision on applying penalties for not providing documents confirming inventory accounting at a gas station.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court confirmed the previous legal position that responsibility is imposed only for non-provision of documents regarding goods directly present at the time of inspection at the sales location.
2. The court established that the Plaintiff provided a significant number of documents, including waybills, shift reports, fiscal receipts, which confirm proper accounting of petroleum products.
3. Absence of quality passports and conformity certificates cannot be considered grounds for applying penalties, as these documents are not primary accounting documents.
Court Decision: Maintain previous instance decisions on canceling the tax notification-decision, i.e., recognize tax authority actions as unlawful.
Case No. 620/10864/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging orders on disciplinary action and dismissal of a police officer due to service discipline violation during curfew.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff, being a police officer, violated service discipline by driving a car during curfew under martial law and refusing to undergo alcohol intoxication testing.
2. The court emphasized that a police officer must adhere to high ethical standards not only during service but also during off-duty time, especially under martial law.
3. The Supreme Court underlined that absence of administrative liability does not exclude the existence of a disciplinary offense that may be grounds for dismissing a police officer.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous instance decisions and rejected the police officer’s claim to declare dismissal orders unlawful.
Case No. 990/406/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging inactionDecisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding certain actions that the plaintiff considers necessary.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that there are no legal grounds for satisfying the claim. The panel of judges thoroughly examined the case materials and established that the actions (or inaction) of the High Qualification Commission of Judges comply with current legislation. The court took into account all provided evidence and arguments of the parties, after which a decision was made in favor of the defendant.
The Supreme Court decided to completely reject the claim of PERSON_1 to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.
Case No. 761/2742/19 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation complaint by the defense counsel against a verdict in a criminal case of murder committed under aggravating circumstances.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous judicial instances (district and appellate courts) correctly established all circumstances of the crime. In particular, the previous convictions of the accused were taken into account, indicating his persistent antisocial behavior. The court considered the severity of the crime under paragraph 13 of part 2 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and recognized that the imposed punishment is fair and justified.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the Kyiv Appellate Court and rejected the cassation complaint of the defense counsel, thereby essentially confirming the correctness of previous court decisions.
Case No. 351/2390/23 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation review of a verdict regarding a person who attempted robbery during martial law.
Main arguments of the court: The Appellate Court allowed significant procedural violations, in particular, did not consider the cassation complaint of the convicted PERSON_7, despite its presence in the case materials. Moreover, in the full text of the decision, the court indicated that it supposedly reviewed this complaint, although it did not actually do so. The court also ignored the convicted person’s request to participate in the court session via video conference.
Court decision: Revoke the decision of the Ivano-Frankivsk Appellate Court and assign a new hearing in the appellate court, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 454/910/13-к dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of the investigating judge’s decision based on newly discovered circumstances in criminal proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court noted that the procedure for reviewing court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is clearly regulated by Chapter 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code with an exhaustive list of grounds. Second, PERSON_6 did not provide specific circumstances that could have influenced the previous court decision, but only attempted to artificially initiate a new review of the case. Third, the court emphasized that investigating judge’s decisions can be reviewed only if there was an unreasonable restriction of constitutional rights and no other legal remedies exist.
Court decision: The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings, as the challenged decisions are not subject to cassation appeal according to part 4 of Article 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Case No. 585/1973/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute – criminal proceedings against a person accused of crimes related to narcotic substances (part 1 of Article 309, part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code).
The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, likely believing that the previous decision of the appellate court contained significant procedural violations. In particular, the court revoked the previous decision of the Sumy Appellate Court and assigned a new hearing in the appellate instance. Additionally, the court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days, indicating the seriousness of the charges.
The Supreme Court decided to revoke the decision of the SumyHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
of the appellate court and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Case No. 760/7688/17 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court on returning the appellate complaint by the convict’s defense counsel.
The court considered the issue of the legitimacy of returning the appellate complaint. The main arguments were procedural grounds for appealing the court decision and compliance with procedural norms when reviewing the appellate complaint. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court improperly returned the complaint, violating the person’s right to appeal the court decision.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 580/2826/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges non-payment of additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 hryvnias for participation in combat operations during certain periods of 2022.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The serviceman’s presence in the combat area does not automatically mean the right to full additional remuneration.
2. Previous instance courts did not investigate all circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify what specific tasks the serviceman performed during the disputed periods.
3. A certificate from the military unit is not sufficient documentary confirmation of direct participation in combat operations.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 560/16432/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Serviceman challenges the inaction of the State Border Guard Service regarding non-payment of additional remuneration of up to 30,000 hryvnias for October and November 2022.
Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court established a fundamentally important position that previous instance courts incorrectly applied Instruction No. 188 when assessing the serviceman’s right to additional remuneration. Instead, they should have been guided by the order of the State Border Guard Service Administration dated July 30, 2022, No. 392/0/81-22-AG, which defined the mechanism for implementing Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. The courts had to clarify specific circumstances: whether the serviceman performed official duties, whether he was on treatment, for what reasons, and under what conditions.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 916/97/21 dated 13/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid Supplementary Agreement No. 2 to the contract on the use of sea port territory between LLC “AUTOLOGISTICS” and SE “Black Sea Commercial Port”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Supplementary Agreement No. 2 changed the legal nature of the original contract from service provision to actual lease of state property
– The agreement was signed without permission from the Ministry of Infrastructure, contrary to Order No. 331 on preparation for public-private partnership
– The port representative signed the agreement beyond the scope of their powers
– The state enterprise intended to terminate the contract, which indicates the bad faith of the counterparty
3. Court decision: Uphold the appellate court’s ruling on declaring Supplementary Agreement No. 2 invalid, reject the cassation complaint of LLC “AUTOLOGISTICS”.
Case No. 320/13326/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring the order of dismissal of a civil servant unlawful and reinstating them in their position.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Tax Service violated the1. The procedure of dismissal was carried out without observing the 30-day notice period for dismissal and without offering the plaintiff alternative positions.
2. The SMS message dated February 23, 2023, cannot be considered an official dismissal notice due to the lack of necessary information.
3. The introduction of martial law does not change the guarantees of civil servants upon dismissal, as provided by the Law “On Civil Service”.
Court Decision: To uphold the decisions of previous instances regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiff in the position and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
Case No. 260/7382/21 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of actions by the State Enterprise “Mokryanske Forestry and Hunting Enterprise” as unlawful regarding the issuance of logging permits for clear sanitary felling in the high-mountain forests of the Carpathian region.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The previous instances incorrectly evaluated evidence, including expert conclusions from a criminal case, which cannot be considered indisputable evidence in an administrative process.
2. The courts did not properly examine the forest management materials from 2010 and continuous forest management, based on which the State Ecological Inspection established violations.
3. Expert opinions attached to the case were not properly certified and signed, which calls into question their admissibility as evidence.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 240/18584/22 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Zhytomyr Region regarding the reduction of negative VAT amount and increase of VAT monetary obligation for LLC “Construction Alliance Montageproject”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. During the inspection, the company’s primary documents were seized by law enforcement agencies, which objectively complicated the verification process.
2. The tax authority did not take appropriate measures to obtain and study the seized documents, limiting itself to a formal review.
3. The controlling body did not conduct additional reconciliations with contractors and did not send additional requests to clarify the case circumstances.
Court Decision: To uphold the decisions of previous instances on satisfying the claim of LLC “Construction Alliance Montageproject” and canceling tax notifications-decisions.
Case No. 990/117/24 dated 10/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to refuse recommendations to PERSON_1 for appointment as a judge of the Bahlii District Court.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine did not provide convincing evidence of the candidate’s lack of integrity
– The fact of company bankruptcy and the existence of a court order do not in themselves indicate lack of integrity
– The HQCJ decision lacks proper substantiation and is based on assumptions
– The circumstances underlying the decision were known earlier and did not raise objections during previous candidate checks
3. Court Decision: Recognize the HQCJ decision as unlawful, cancel it, and oblige the commission to conduct a repeated interview with the candidate.
Case No. 460/9560/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Collection of tax debt from land lease rent and challenging tax notifications-decisions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court believes that the previous instances incorrectly evaluated evidence and did not investigate all case circumstances regarding the transfer of land use rights when alienating real estate.
2. The court drew attention to the fact that when transferring property ownership, the right of useThe right of land use also automatically transfers to the new owner.
3. The panel of judges pointed out the need for a thorough investigation of the circumstances of the transfer of land use rights when alienating real estate.
Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances 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. 500/7072/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition as unlawful and cancellation of a tax notification-decision on reducing the negative value of value added tax.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established the reality of economic transactions between PE “Kolmar” and PF “Agrarna Nyva” based on primary documents confirming the fact of corn supply.
2. The tax authority’s conclusions about the unreality of operations are based on assumptions and not confirmed by proper evidence, in particular regarding the impossibility of corn cultivation by contractors.
3. The lack of significant material resources by contractors is not an indisputable proof of the unreality of economic operations, as they could attract resources on lease or sublease terms.
Court decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances on cancellation of the tax notification-decision and satisfaction of the claim by PE “Kolmar”.
Case No. 400/3307/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: The State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine attempted to cancel the special permit for subsoil use by the municipal enterprise “Water Supply of Voznesensk” due to non-fulfillment of the prescription to eliminate environmental violations.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The enterprise is taking real measures to fulfill the prescription, despite objective difficulties (martial law, financial limitations)
– Cancellation of the permit would lead to catastrophic consequences for the city, as it is the only water supply enterprise
– The enterprise has fulfilled most of the prescription requirements and continues to work on eliminating the remaining comments
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, i.e., preserve the subsoil use permit for the municipal enterprise.
The judges essentially protected a socially important enterprise, taking into account the difficult circumstances of wartime.
Case No. 922/2179/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under a contract for replacing equipment of the automated control system of engineering and technical devices.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the defendant had financial difficulties during the disputed period, particularly due to the pandemic, martial law, and suspension of passenger transportation.
2. In the contract, the parties agreed that in case of financial difficulties, payment delays are possible without accrual of penalties.
3. The plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s financial difficulties, as evidenced by a letter dated 04/06/2023.
Court decision: Uphold the resolution of the appellate commercial court, which partially modified the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to recover penalties and partially reducing the amount of inflation losses and 3% per annum.
Case No. 910/11564/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the decision of the General Meeting of the Car Garage Cooperative.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the rules for distributing court costs, guided by the principles of economic litigation.
2. It was established that not all claimed lawyer expenses are justified and reasonable, in particular, some expenses were included without grounds (for example, for court sessions that did not take place).
3. The court took into account that the legal position of the defendant was already formed before the cassation review, and representation was carried out by the same lawyer.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the application
