Here is the translation of the legal text:
Case No. 1416/7113/12 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging an in absentia court decision on debt recovery under a credit agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Court of Appeal incorrectly determined the term for appeal, mistakenly believing it to be 10 days.
2. According to current procedural legislation, the term for appeal is 30 days.
3. At the time of filing the appeal (17 October 2024), the term had not been missed.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, revoked the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and referred the case for a new hearing to the Court of Appeal.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the calculation of appeal terms, emphasizing the need to apply the procedural law in force at the time of the procedural action.
Case No. 161/5053/22 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging by the prosecutor the ruling of the Court of Appeal on imposing a fine instead of imprisonment for a driver who caused a traffic accident with serious bodily injuries.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Court of Appeal had sufficient grounds to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code and impose a milder punishment, as it considered a number of mitigating circumstances – admission of guilt, voluntary compensation for damage, low risk of repeated crime, positive personal characteristics, and absence of claims from the victim. The court considered a fine of 170,000 hryvnias and deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for 5 years to be a fair punishment.
Court Decision: Leave the ruling of the Court of Appeal unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 463/8617/22 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty for late fulfillment of monetary obligation under a credit agreement and compensation for moral damage.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The creditor’s right to accrue interest under the credit agreement terminates after the end of the loan term or presentation of a demand for early repayment
– The court decision from 2014 changed the conditions of the main obligation regarding the contract term
– The plaintiff has already exercised the right to compensation for moral damage in another case, therefore repeated recovery is not allowed
Court Decision: Refuse to recover the penalty and partially modify the motivational part of the decision regarding the refusal to compensate for moral damage.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice in interpreting the grounds for penalty accrual and moral damage compensation.
Case No. 2а-16636/12/2670 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Restriction of the right to peaceful assembly near the National Bank of Ukraine.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The ECHR established that restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly in Ukraine lack a clear legislative basis.
2. The 1988 decree and the local decision of the Kyiv City Council cannot serve as a legal basis for restricting citizens’ constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
3. The Constitution of Ukraine requires that the procedure for organizing peaceful assemblies be established exclusively by law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and refuse the Kyiv City State Administration’s claim to restrict the right to peaceful assembly.
Case No. 361/6148/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the right to joint shared ownership of a land plot and removal of arrest from it.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Courts of previous instances incorrectly considered the case, as they did not involve the creditor in the process, which is importantHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
procedural error.
2. The court did not ensure a full and comprehensive review of the case, effectively leaving the disputed issue unresolved.
3. Despite the fact that the claim is filed by the defendant, the court is obliged to verify the validity of the claim and the appropriateness of the process participants.
Court decision: Revoke previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/10/25 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the President of Ukraine regarding the establishment of the subsistence minimum for non-working persons in the state budget laws.
Main arguments of the court: First, the Verkhovna Rada and the President do not exercise administrative functions during legislative activities, therefore their actions cannot be the subject of administrative proceedings. Second, the Constitution defines the VRU as the sole legislative body, and when adopting laws, it does not perform executive administrative functions. Third, restrictions on the right to judicial protection are legitimate, as they do not violate the essence of the right of access to court.
Court decision: Leave the appeal without satisfaction and confirm the previous ruling on refusal to open proceedings.
Case No. 990/225/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, which concerns the plaintiff’s professional activities.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying her claims. Judges paid special attention to the procedural aspects of the case and established that the decision of the High Qualification Commission was made within its powers and in accordance with the established procedure. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff’s arguments do not contain convincing evidence of the unlawfulness of the challenged decision.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appeal without satisfaction and confirmed the previous decision of the Cassation Administrative Court.
Case No. 296/8522/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict against a person accused of a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (presumably, violation of road safety rules).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court carefully studied the case materials and the cassation appeal of the defender. The court concluded that the appellate verdict is lawful and substantiated, as all procedural norms were observed, and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is convincing. The panel of judges found no grounds for cancellation or modification of the previous court decision.
Court decision: Leave the verdict of the Zhytomyr Appellate Court unchanged, and the defender’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 820/18496/14 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Northern Interregional Tax Service for Work with Large Taxpayers against LLC “Kharkiv Machine-Building Plant “FED”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court instances correctly assessed the evidence and complied with tax legislation norms. The panel of judges established that the tax notifications-decisions were issued on legal grounds, in compliance with all procedural requirements. The plaintiff’s arguments about the illegality of the accrued tax liabilities were not confirmed in the case materials.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, confirming the legitimacy of the decisions of the previous court instances.
Case No. 560/9731/23 dated 18/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the tax notificRuling-Decision on Imposing a Penalty for Late Registration of Tax Invoices in 2022.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Tax invoices were registered with violation of terms (in July-August 2022)
– The court clearly determined that new “war-time” norms on reduced penalties (paragraphs 89-90 of the Tax Code) do not have retroactive effect
– The penalty must be calculated according to the old rules of paragraph 120-1.1 of Article 120-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine
– The controlling authority correctly calculated the penalty in full amount
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel previous court decisions and reject the enterprise’s claim to cancel the penalty of 1,474,594.18 UAH. The case regarding the penalty of 535.12 UAH shall be sent for new consideration.
Case No. 520/24329/23 dated 18/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court ruling:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the tax notification-decision on imposing penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The company could not timely register tax invoices due to force majeure circumstances (military aggression, premises damage due to shelling)
– The Chamber of Commerce certificate confirms the impossibility of registering invoices from 21.06.2022 to 16.09.2022
– Part of the invoices was sent to the Unified Register of Tax Invoices within the established terms, but due to technical reasons was not timely registered
– Absence of receipts from the tax authority prevents imposing penalties
3. Court Decision: Cancel the tax notification-decision and penalties in full.
Important: The court confirmed that force majeure circumstances due to war can be grounds for exemption from financial liability for late registration of tax invoices.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
The guardianship and custody authority recommended determining the children’s place of residence with the mother and conducted a detailed study of the family situation, including the children’s own opinion.
3. An important argument was that the mother works as a teacher, has a pedagogical education, and the children expressed a desire to live with her. At the same time, the court emphasized that this does not deprive the father of the right to communicate with the children and participate in their upbringing.
Court decision: Leave the children’s place of residence with the mother, rejecting the father’s counterclaim.
Case No. 465/2267/17 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Debt collection under a loan agreement and concluding a settlement agreement on transferring immovable property in favor of the creditor.
Main arguments of the court: The Court of Appeal canceled the settlement agreement because the real estate objects being transferred are located on land plots owned by the Lviv City Council without documents confirming ownership or use of these land plots. The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position, as the rights and interests of the third party (Lviv City Council) were potentially violated by the settlement agreement terms.
Court decision: Cassation complaint left unsatisfied, the appellate court’s ruling on canceling the settlement agreement remains unchanged.
Case No. 910/13328/22 dated 17/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement for a share in the authorized capital of LLC “Barvy-2005” and return of 100% of the authorized capital.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– PERSON_1 does not have corporate rights in LLC “Barvy-2005”
– The court decision does not directly violate the complainant’s rights
– No evidence that the company’s authorized capital was formed from an inherited land plot
– The complainant did not prove a direct connection between the court decision and her rights
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the previous ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
The court decision demonstrates a clear position regarding the procedural rights of persons who were not direct participants in the case.
Case No. 308/3496/19 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cancellation of state registration of the bank’s ownership right to an apartment transferred as a mortgage under a loan agreement in foreign currency.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The bank did not follow the procedure for notifying the plaintiff about the violation of obligations, which makes it impossible to apply an out-of-court method of satisfying the mortgagee’s requirements.
2. The disputed apartment falls under the moratorium on seizure of property from Ukrainian citizens for loans in foreign currency, as it is the plaintiff’s only housing with an area less than 140 sq.m.
3. The state registrar had no grounds to register the bank’s ownership right to the apartment due to the moratorium and non-compliance with the notification procedure.
Court decision: Leave the previous court decisions on canceling the bank’s ownership registration unchanged and reject the bank’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 522/17409/22 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovering an apartment from a bona fide acquirer in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage object.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the mortgagee followed all necessary procedures for out-of-court foreclosure on the mortgage object: sent a demand to remedy violations, conducted property valuation, and acquired ownership of the apartment in accordance with the “On Mortgage” law.
2. The court confirmed that until February 26, 2020, there was no mandatory requirement to submit an evaluation report to the registry, so the absence of such a report cannot be grounds for canceling ownership registration.
3. Since PERSON_3 isA bona fide acquirer who purchased an apartment under a compensated contract and was unaware of possible prior violations cannot have the property seized from them.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 314/4551/21 dated 26/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Determining the place of residence of a minor child between divorced parents.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The best interests of the child are a priority when resolving a dispute about the place of residence
– The father created better living conditions for the child: separate room, proper care, participation in upbringing
– The mother has not been actively involved in the child’s upbringing for a long time
– The place of residence in Zaporizhzhia, despite its proximity to the front, is not an obstacle to the child’s residence
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the mother’s cassation complaint, canceled the decision of the appellate court, and sent the case for a new review.
Important: The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive analysis of the case circumstances, taking into account the child’s interests.
Case No. 474/436/21 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Criminal case of causing moderate bodily harm to a minor.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the evidence in the case and established that PERSON_7 intentionally attacked a minor, causing him bodily harm. The court recognized the testimony of the victim, witnesses, and expert conclusions as credible and confirming the defendant’s guilt. The panel of judges concluded that the totality of collected evidence unequivocally indicates that the crime was committed by PERSON_7.
Court decision: Leave the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, and the district court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 148/1136/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Review of the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint against the court verdict convicting a person for a robbery with the aim of seizing property.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court found that the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling are legal and substantiated, as the person’s guilt is fully proven.
2. The imposed punishment of 9 years of imprisonment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the convicted person, as this is a particularly serious crime committed during martial law.
3. The court thoroughly analyzed the defense lawyer’s arguments about the possibility of applying a milder punishment and concluded that there are no grounds for this.
Court decision: Leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint – unsatisfied.
Case No. 750/645/24 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging the first instance court’s verdict regarding release from serving a sentence with probation for fraud.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court formally reviewed the case and did not provide proper legal assessment of the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime.
2. The court did not take into account that the convicted person committed a mercenary crime against an elderly person, seizing a significant sum of money (59,652 UAH).
3. The appellate court groundlessly applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on release from serving a sentence with probation, without properly assessing the degree of social danger of the committed act.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 916/596/23 dated 06/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of decisions of the conference of the public organization “Gara1. Joint Society “Portovik-1” dated 18.02.2022 and cancellation of state registration of changes to the legal entity information.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– 14 delegates were present instead of the required 22 (1 delegate per 25 organization members)
– Evidence of election of all 14 delegates is absent – the respondent provided protocols only for 7 delegates
– Lack of quorum is an indisputable ground for declaring the conference decisions invalid
– Adopted decisions violate the plaintiff’s corporate rights, as they relate to termination of their powers in the organization’s board
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, and previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., declare the conference decisions invalid.
Case No. 9901/415/21 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring the inaction of the President of Ukraine regarding non-issuance of a decree on appointing a person as a judge of the Kherson City Court of Kherson Region within the legally prescribed period as unlawful.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The President of Ukraine is obliged to issue a decree on appointing a judge within 30 days after receiving a submission from the High Council of Justice.
2. The President’s inaction is unlawful, as he did not issue a decree on appointing a judge even after the legally established period, with no objective obstacles to such appointment.
3. The fact that the plaintiff applied to court 4 months after the expiration of the established period is not grounds for rejecting the claim, as the unlawful inaction is of a continuing nature.
Court decision: Leave the President of Ukraine’s appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged.
Case No. 580/10882/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of dispute: A municipal enterprise challenges the legitimacy of penalty accrual for late registration of tax invoices during various periods of martial law.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the enterprise indeed violated the tax invoice registration deadlines.
2. The court clearly defined that penalties for invoices issued before January 16, 2023, should be calculated under the old rules (10-50% of VAT amount).
3. Penalties for invoices issued after January 16, 2023, can be calculated using new, reduced rates (2-25% of VAT amount).
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the tax authority’s cassation complaint, canceling previous instances’ decisions regarding reduction of the penalty by 587,848 UAH and leaving other decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/6889/24 dated 18/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Dispute on recovery of debt under a purchase and sale agreement for the amount of 7,555,090.01 UAH.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The cassation instance court believes the appellate court prematurely refused to open appellate proceedings.
– The court did not properly investigate the reasons for missing the appeal deadline.
– The court did not consider the possibility of reinstating the term under part three of Article 256 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
– The appellate court did not assess the respondent’s actions to eliminate appellate complaint deficiencies in terms of reasonableness and good faith.
3. Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and send the case back to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 463/597/16-ц dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the city council’s decision to grant a land plot to a third party, contrary to the plaintiff’s previously submitted application.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The city council violated the procedure for considering the land application by not bringing it to the session
– The court decision obliged to consider the plaintiff’s applicationHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
, but this was not done
– : The court emphasized that the person who first began the formation of the land plot has priority right to obtain it
– The city council’s decision was made in violation of the law and violates the plaintiff’s rights
3. Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, keep the appellate court’s resolution unchanged, i.e., support the plaintiff.
Case No. 947/16221/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim for compensation of moral damages caused by the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Courts of previous instances improperly created barriers to the plaintiff’s access to justice by imposing formal requirements for sending documents to the defendant (Russian Federation) and paying court fees.
2. The plaintiff is entitled to exemption from court fees in cases against the aggressor state, therefore the court should have clarified the details of the claim instead of returning the application.
3. Due to the absence of diplomatic relations with Russia, the court can notify about the case review through the official website of the Ukrainian judicial authorities.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 185/7288/21 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring an executive sheet as non-executable and appealing the court order returning the appellate complaint due to non-payment of court fees.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that PERSON_1 as the plaintiff in the case of health damage compensation is exempt from paying court fees. The appellate court incorrectly returned the appellate complaint, demanding payment of court fees, which violates the person’s right to access to justice. The court referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes the importance of ensuring real access to court and execution of court decisions.
Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s order, and sent the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 697/2102/22 dated 12/03/2025
The case concerns a dispute about returning forestry land plots to state ownership.
Main arguments of the court:
1. In 2005, land plots totaling over 60 hectares were illegally transferred to private ownership of citizens contrary to the established procedure.
2. These plots are part of a single forest massif and belong to forestry lands that were not subject to privatization.
3. The district administration’s order to transfer the plots was made without the state’s will and without coordination with forestry authorities.
The court decided to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim and obligate the owners to return the land plots to the state, canceling their private ownership registration.
Case No. 524/3427/20 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: The owner of property rights to an apartment demanded that the developers transfer to him a three-room apartment with original project parameters, as the actual apartment area was smaller than planned.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, when concluding the contract, the parties provided a mechanism for compensating the difference between the project and actual apartment area. Secondly, area reduction in itself is not a violation of the contract terms. Thirdly, the buyer is only entitled to return of overpaid funds, not to receiving an apartment with original parameters.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported previous court decisions refusing the claim.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: first, the defendant (PERSON_1) was well aware of the pending court case and had a representative lawyer who could monitor the progress of the case. Second, despite the defendant’s reference to being abroad, they did not provide convincing evidence of the impossibility of appealing the decision within the established timeframe. Third, the procedural law establishes clear limitations – an appellate complaint cannot be filed later than one year from the date of the court decision.
The court decided to leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, that is, to support the previous court decisions on refusing to open appellate proceedings.
Case No. 527/955/24 dated 14/03/2025
The case concerns a lawsuit for depriving a mother of parental rights regarding her son.
The court’s main arguments:
1. Deprivation of parental rights is an exceptional measure that requires indisputable evidence of deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities.
2. In this case, the court did not find sufficient grounds to believe that the mother negatively influences the child or systematically neglects parental duties.
3. The court took into account the child’s opinion, who expressed a desire to deprive the mother of parental rights, but did not consider this opinion decisive.
The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged, rejecting the plaintiff’s cassation complaint about depriving the mother of parental rights.
Case No. 463/155/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Termination of ownership of an apartment share with monetary compensation.
The court’s main arguments:
1. The court established that the plaintiff made a monetary compensation to the deposit account, although part of the funds did not arrive due to a bank’s technical error.
2. The circumstance indicated by the defendant is not newly discovered, as it does not refute the factual circumstances of the case and cannot significantly affect the court decision.
3. The principle of legal certainty does not allow reviewing final court decisions without weighty grounds.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 300/461/22 dated 18/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging decisions of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council on refusing an individual permission to develop a land management project and granting such permission to another person.
2. The court’s main arguments:
– The city council’s decision to refuse the plaintiff permission to develop a land management project is unfounded, as it contains no legally prescribed grounds for such refusal.
– Current legislation does not establish restrictions on land use within red lines.
– The city council’s actions in granting a land management permit to another person who applied later are unfair.
3. Court decision: Satisfy the lawsuit of PERSON_1, cancel the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council’s decision, and oblige a repeated review of the application for permission to develop a land management project.
Important: The court emphasized the principles of good faith and reasonableness in decision-making by local self-government bodies in land matters.
Case No. 489/5087/20 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against PERSON_7, convicted of serious violent crimes, including robbery, illegal deprivation of liberty, and extortion, with appeal of the imposed property confiscation.
The court’s main arguments:
1. The court recognized that total property confiscation may violate the rights of other family members living in the house.
2. It was established that the houseHere is the translation of the provided text:
was purchased by the convict’s father back in 2000, when he was 7 years old.
3. Nine people are registered and living in the house, including a disabled mother, a disabled sister, and minor children.
Court Decision: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal and modified the verdict, excluding the confiscation of housing, leaving the rest of the punishment unchanged.
Case No. 925/425/24 dated 04/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the obligation of the managing company to transfer technical documentation for multi-apartment buildings to the newly created association of co-owners (OSBB).
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The law clearly establishes the obligation of the previous manager to transfer technical documentation to the OSBB within three months after its state registration
– This obligation is unconditional and does not depend on the availability of documentation with the manager
– In case of absence of documentation, the manager is obliged to restore it at their own expense
– Non-transfer of documentation violates the rights of multi-apartment building co-owners
3. Court Decision: To leave the previous court decisions unchanged and oblige the managing company to transfer technical documentation to the OSBB.
Case No. 160/21398/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legitimacy of the decision of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service to exclude LLC “Telenavigator” from the single tax payers register.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The controlling body made a decision without conducting a proper documentary audit, which is a violation of the procedure.
2. The audit report does not contain clear evidence of the company’s engagement in activities prohibited for single tax payers.
3. The mere fact of having certain types of activities in the register does not automatically deprive the right to a simplified taxation system.
Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the appellate administrative court and keep in force the decision of the court of first instance on declaring the tax authority’s decision unlawful.
Case No. 283/2682/19 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about a road traffic accident with fatal consequences, committed by a driver in a state of alcoholic intoxication.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established irrefutable evidence of the driver’s state of alcoholic intoxication, including his own testimony and medical documents. Second, the court thoroughly checked all procedural aspects of the investigation, including the procedure for examination and taking biological samples, and found no systemic violations. Third, the court took into account the personal circumstances of the defendant but recognized that the act committed was a serious crime that caused a person’s death.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions and the imposed punishment of 3 years of imprisonment unchanged.
Case No. 642/6315/16 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court in a criminal case regarding official abuse (Part 2 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the prosecutor’s arguments and found that the previous ruling of the appellate court needs review. The court concluded that there are procedural grounds for canceling the previous decision. The panel of judges considered it necessary to send the case for a new appellate review for a more detailed examination of the criminal proceedings circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 990/383/24 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of the High Qualification CommissionLegal Position of the Judges of Ukraine Regarding the Appointment of Repeated Qualification Assessment of a Judge Who Has Already Been Recognized as Corresponding to the Occupied Position.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. At the time of the emergence of disputed legal relations, the legislation provided that the assessment of a judge’s compliance with the occupied position could be carried out exclusively by the HQCJ panel, and not by the plenary composition.
2. The HQCJ panel has already made a decision on the judge’s compliance with the occupied position on 20.03.2019, which is final.
3. Any further actions by the HQCJ to continue the assessment after the panel’s decision are not provided for by legislation.
Court Decision: Recognize the actions of the HQCJ regarding the appointment of repeated qualification assessment of a judge in the plenary composition as unlawful, recover court expenses in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 585/1973/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against a person convicted of storing and selling psychotropic substances.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court believes that the appellate court unreasonably applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposing a milder punishment), as it did not prove the existence of circumstances that significantly reduce the severity of the crime.
2. The crime is qualified as especially serious, which violates the procedure for the circulation of narcotic substances and poses a threat to public health.
3. The court emphasized that sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime are not sufficient grounds for significant mitigation of punishment.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new hearing in the appellate court, as well as choose a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 693/1218/20 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolution of the state executor regarding temporary restriction of exit from Ukraine for a German citizen due to alimony debt.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The state executor has the right to impose a temporary exit restriction when alimony debt exceeds four months.
– The debtor’s citizenship does not exempt him from the obligation to pay alimony.
– However, the court believes that in this case, the proportionality of the restriction and the actual amount of debt were not properly verified.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new hearing to further examine the circumstances.
Case No. 127/2-2509/09 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of the state executor regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings and misleading the bank about the state of forced execution of the court decision.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The bank missed the legally established ten-day period for filing a complaint against the executor’s actions
– The bank had information about the termination of enforcement proceedings much earlier than claimed
– The fact of martial law does not automatically constitute a basis for renewal of the procedural term
– The bank did not provide specific evidence of the impossibility of timely challenging the executor’s actions
Court Decision: Leave the bank’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 760/17947/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from an individual by a bank.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court believes that the appellate court prematurely refused to open appellate proceedings, as the lawyer’s powers were confirmed by a legal assistance agreement and a certificate of advocacy. The court also noted that the party to the case (fromповідач) has the right to personally rectify the deficiencies of the appellate complaint, regardless of the fact that the complaint was filed by its representative.
Court Decision: The cassation complaint has been satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling has been revoked, and the case has been referred back to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 990/99/24 dated 27/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the Dispute:
Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) to refuse to recommend PERSON_1 for a judge position due to doubts about her integrity.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The court supported the HQCJ’s decision, believing that there are well-founded doubts about the candidate’s integrity due to:
– Incomplete property declaration (did not indicate the value of apartments and cars)
– Simultaneous oath-taking as a civil servant and an attorney
– Improper completion of the candidate’s questionnaire
– Insufficient understanding of ethical norms of judicial conduct during the interview
3. Court Decision:
PERSON_1’s appellate complaint has been left unsatisfied, the HQCJ’s decision has been recognized as lawful.
Key Conclusion: The Commission lawfully exercised its right to assess the candidate’s integrity within the provided discretion.
Case No. 705/6905/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Cassation appeal of the Cherkasy Appellate Court’s verdict in a criminal case about murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint. The court concluded that the previous judicial instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and legally qualified the convicted person’s actions. The defense counsel’s arguments did not contain convincing evidence that could change the legal assessment of the committed criminal offense.
Court Decision: To leave the Cherkasy Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/23532/13 dated 18/03/2025
The case concerns challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the activities of the enterprise “Lactalys-Ukraine”.
The court thoroughly analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision requires partial adjustment. Judges paid special attention to the legal assessment of the enterprise’s actions from the perspective of compliance with legislation on protection of economic competition, examined all provided evidence and arguments of the parties.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the Antimonopoly Committee’s cassation complaint, modifying the motivational part of the previous resolution, but leaving the main decision unchanged.
Case No. 380/18610/24 dated 18/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the Dispute: Challenging the order for conducting an actual inspection of LLC “SPC “Hetman” and possible revocation of licenses for production and sale of alcoholic beverages.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Revocation of licenses could significantly harm the economic activity of the enterprise, which has over 350 employees and conducts export activities.
– Temporary prohibition of license revocation is necessary to preserve the economic stability of the enterprise until the dispute is resolved on the merits.
– The court took into account that the main activity of LLC is production of alcoholic beverages, so depriving it of licenses would effectively stop its entire operation.
3. Court Decision: To leave unchanged the previous court decisions on temporary prohibition of license revocation for LLC “SPC “Hetman”.
Case No. 500/1744/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute – challenging the tax notification-decision issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Ternopil Oblast against LLC “Fora S”.
The court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concludedHere is the translation of the text into English:
The previous judicial instances (Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal) incorrectly interpreted the circumstances of the case. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court established that the tax notice-decision was issued in compliance with all procedural norms and has legal grounds. The court took into account all provided evidence and arguments of the parties confirming the legitimacy of the tax authority’s actions.
The Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service, canceling the appellate court’s resolution and leaving the district administrative court’s decision in force.
Case No. 344/7965/23 dated 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Land dispute regarding invalidation of decisions on land plot transfer and ownership registration.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The boundaries of adjacent land plots were previously agreed upon by the owners, and there is no evidence of boundary violations.
2. The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of rights violation and did not conduct an expert examination to establish the reasons for land plot overlapping.
3. Technical errors in determining land plot boundaries should be resolved by developing technical documentation, rather than canceling establishing documents.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous court instances’ decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 505/3189/18 dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the dismissal of PERSON_1 from SE “NEC “Ukrenergo” due to staff reduction.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The employer did not offer the employee all available vacant positions that he could occupy
– At the time of dismissal, the company had 278 vacant positions
– The number of management staff increased by 1,113 persons
– The trade union committee did not consent to the dismissal
– The dismissal procedure was violated
3. Court decision: Reinstate PERSON_1 in the previous position, recover average salary for the period of forced absence amounting to 1,971,525.16 UAH and 5,000 UAH for moral damages.
Court decision in favor of the employee.
Case No. 990/36/23 dated 06/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the Presidential Decree on applying sanctions to an individual for 10 years.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Sanctions were applied legally based on the “On Sanctions” law
– There is evidence of the person’s involvement in actions threatening Ukraine’s national security
– In particular, there is information about the person’s cooperation with terrorist organizations “LPR” and “DPR”
– Sanctions have a preventive nature and are proportional to the purpose of protecting state interests
3. Court decision: Leave the appellate appeal unsatisfied and the previous court decision unchanged.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of the circle of persons to whom sanctions may be applied.
Case No. 990/92/22 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging the Verkhovna Rada resolution on expressing no confidence and dismissing the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights during martial law.
Main arguments of the court:
Note: The court for the first time clearly interpreted that during martial law, the Verkhovna Rada may dismiss an official by expressing no confidence, even if not provided for by special laws. This is an additional ground that applies exclusively during the period of martial law.
The court determined that:
1) The dismissal occurred within the constitutional powers of the Verkhovna Rada;
2) The procedure for expressing no confidence was followed;
3) The plaintiff was given an opportunity to explain her position;
4) Grounds for dismissal were
