Case No. 912/930/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determination of the Authorized Capital and Participants’ Shares in the Additional Liability Company “Svitlovodske Quarry Management”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that both in the original claim and in the third party’s claim with independent demands, the subject of the dispute is determining the authorized capital and participants’ shares in the company.
2. Both claims are substantiated by disagreement with the company’s general meeting decision from 16.02.2018 regarding increasing the authorized capital through contributions from various participants.
3. The court considers the lower courts’ statement about the different legal nature of the claims incorrect and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to resolving the dispute.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the previous instances’ decisions, and referred the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 380/11023/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the appointment and payment of a pension to PERSON_1, taking into account indexation and compensation for loss of income.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that previous court decisions incorrectly terminated the proceedings, as the claims for pension indexation and compensation for loss of income were not subject to review in the previous case. The court noted that the dispute is not identical to the previous one, as it is based on different legal grounds and has a different subject of dispute.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the previous instances’ decisions regarding claims for pension indexation and compensation for loss of income, and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/51/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty and recovery of a vehicle under a leasing agreement between “Porsche Leasing Ukraine” and PE “Art House Millennium”.
Main Court Arguments:
– To recover a penalty, it is necessary to prove the defendant’s fault in non-return of property
– The defendant proved that the vehicle was not in their possession through no fault of their own
– The presence of a notary’s executive inscription makes a court claim an ineffective method of protection
– The risk of property loss does not automatically mean the lessee’s liability
Court Decision: Reject the claim for recovery of penalty and recovery of the vehicle.
Key Thesis: The court emphasized that the impossibility of returning property without the debtor’s fault cannot be a basis for recovering a penalty.
Case No. 260/144/24 dated 18/03/2025
Case concerns challenging the normative monetary valuation of land plots of two joint-stock companies.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The prosecutor does not have the right to file an appellate complaint solely due to the local council’s lack of funds to pay the court fee.
2. Protecting the state’s interests should primarily be done by the relevant authorities, not the prosecutor. The prosecutor can intervene only in exceptional cases of complete inaction by the authorities.
3. Inadequate financing of authorities is not a basis for the prosecutor’s intervention in the court process.
The court decided to leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and support the appellate court’s decision to close the appellate proceedings.
Case No. 280/10836/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine regarding transferring a citizen’s appeal about damage compensation to the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Main Court Arguments:
– The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine does not have the authority to independently develop normativeand acts on damage compensation
– Submission of an appeal to the Cabinet of Ministers complies with the legislation on citizens’ appeals
– The issue of compensation for damage from unconstitutional acts requires legislative regulation
– The Verkhovna Rada acted within its constitutional powers by forwarding the appeal as appropriate
3. Court Decision: Reject the plaintiff’s administrative claim against the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
Case No. 460/552/24 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of the Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service in Rivne Oblast regarding the reduction of the allowance for service specifics and bonus in the certificate of monetary support for pension recalculation.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances incorrectly assessed the circumstances of the case. In particular, they did not establish the actual amounts of the allowance for service specifics and bonus, which were actually paid for the plaintiff’s position as of January 1, 2023. The court referred to its own decision in a model case, which established that such payments should be indicated in the average amounts actually paid for the month when the right to pension recalculation arose.
3. Court Decision: Annul the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and refer the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance to establish all factual circumstances of the case.
Case No. 761/28949/17 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery from the Deposit Guarantee Fund of inflation losses, three percent per annum, penalty, lost profits, and moral damages for late payment of the guaranteed deposit amount.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals” are special and priority in legal relations related to the withdrawal of a bank from the market.
2. During temporary administration and bank liquidation, it is prohibited to accrue any financial sanctions, including inflation losses, annual interest, and penalty.
3. There are no contractual relations between the plaintiff and the Fund, and the Fund performs its obligations exclusively within the limits provided by the special law.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation complaints unsatisfied and supported the previous instances’ decisions to refuse recovery of funds from the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals.
Case No. 320/39247/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the limitation of the military serviceman’s pension indexation to 1,500 hryvnias in 2023.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine had the right to limit the upper limit of pension indexation to 1,500 hryvnias in 2023 to balance budget expenditures and support the most vulnerable categories of pensioners.
2. This decision was made under martial law conditions when the state is forced to optimize social expenses.
3. The limitation does not violate the pensioner’s rights, as the indexation was carried out taking into account the previous pension increase in 2022.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the legitimacy of limiting pension indexation to 1,500 hryvnias.
Case No. 320/37554/23 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine on amending the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine regarding the building at 37 A Reitarska Street.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Ministry was actually attempting to change the status of the building at 37 A Reitarska Street from an object not subject to inclusion in the Register to a local significance monument.
– This was done by amending the Register’s information, which contradicts the established legislative procedure for inEntry of Cultural Heritage Objects into the Register.
– The Ministry was required to follow a clear procedure for entering an object into the Register, rather than using the procedure for amending information.
3. Court Decision: The court upheld the appellate court’s resolution to cancel the order of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine.
The court decision clearly demonstrates that even with good intentions, it is impossible to bypass the legally established procedure for registering cultural heritage objects.
Case No. 361/193/17 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Brovary City Council on approving technical documentation for the normative monetary valuation of lands in the city of Brovary.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court recognized that the disputed decision is a regulatory legal act subject to a special procedure for adoption and publication. The court found that previous judicial instances incorrectly qualified the legal nature of the decision and did not verify compliance with the procedure for its adoption. The panel of judges emphasized the need to establish all circumstances of the case, in particular, compliance with the procedure for adopting a regulatory act.
3. Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the case circumstances.
Case No. 761/28949/17 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery from the Deposit Guarantee Fund of inflation losses, three percent per annum, penalties, lost profits, and moral damages for late payment of guaranteed compensation for a deposit in an insolvent bank.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Deposit Guarantee System for Individuals” are special and priority in legal relations related to the withdrawal of a bank from the market.
2. During temporary administration and bank liquidation, it is prohibited to accrue any financial sanctions, including inflation losses and three percent per annum.
3. There are no contractual relations between the plaintiff and the Fund, and the Fund performs its obligations solely within the limits provided by the special law.
Court Decision: To leave cassation appeals without satisfaction, and court decisions of previous instances unchanged, refusing to recover additional funds from the Deposit Guarantee Fund.
Case No. 520/4366/21 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognizing as unlawful the refusal of the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine to issue a certificate of judicial remuneration and obliging it to issue such.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of budget financing is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for appellate appeal. The court stressed that a person intending to appeal a court decision must take all possible actions dependent on them. Organizational difficulties of the institution cannot affect compliance with procedural terms, and the state must anticipate funds for such purposes in advance.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, supporting the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open appellate proceedings.
Case No. 160/22026/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding recalculation and payment of pension to a person affected by the Chornobyl disaster, for the period from 01.01.2015 to 30.06.2021.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional part of Article 54 of the Law on Chornobyl Victims’ Status, which limited pension amounts.
2. The state is obligated to compensate for damages to citizens who were artificially limited in pension payments due to the effect of an unconstitutional norm.
3. The absence of a special law on the procedure for damage compensation cannot be a basis forTranslation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Regarding the refusal to protect citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Court Decision: Revoke previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for detailed examination of circumstances and determination of damages.
Case No. 280/1027/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of the State Enterprise “State Land Cadastre Center” regarding the compilation and issuance of a land plot cadastral map extract with inaccurate information.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The cadastral map extract issued by an employee of the State Enterprise “State Land Cadastre Center” is purely informative in nature and is not an administrative act.
2. The State Enterprise “State Land Cadastre Center” is not empowered to make changes to the Public Cadastral Map, which is merely an information portal.
3. Changes to the State Land Cadastre can only be made by a state cadastral registrar according to the procedure established by law.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court modified the resolution of the appellate court, confirming that this dispute is not subject to judicial review under administrative court proceedings.
Case No. 917/1476/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of land lease agreements and their return to the Chornukhyne Village Council.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_1 has already received land plots for farming, therefore repeated acquisition of plots on a non-competitive basis is illegal.
2. Land lease agreements were concluded without adhering to competitive principles, which indicates their aim to illegally seize land plots.
3. Such agreements violate public order and are void in accordance with Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Court Decision: Reject cassation appeals and confirm the resolution of the appellate commercial court on returning land plots to the Chornukhyne Village Council.
Case No. 460/5433/24 dated 18/03/2025
Case concerns challenging the limitation of a military serviceman’s pension indexation in 2023.
Main Court Arguments:
1. In 2023, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine had the right to limit pension indexation to a maximum of 1500 UAH due to martial law and the need to balance budget expenditures.
2. Indexation limitation was carried out to protect the most vulnerable population groups – pensioners with low pensions.
3. Resolution No. 168 was adopted to implement budget legislation and does not violate pensioners’ rights.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, thereby confirming the legitimacy of limiting pension indexation to 1500 UAH.
Case No. 460/27065/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to grant a pension with preferential conditions to a person affected by the Chornobyl disaster.
Main Court Arguments:
1. To receive a preferential pension, a person must permanently reside or work in the guaranteed voluntary resettlement zone as of January 1, 1993, for at least 3 years.
2. In this case, the plaintiff actually worked in the Kursk region of the Russian Federation from January 13, 1990, to September 10, 1993, and therefore did not have the required residence period in the resettlement zone.
3. Possession of a certificate of being affected by the Chornobyl disaster does not automatically guarantee the right to reduced retirement age.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, thus denying the plaintiff a pension on preferential terms.
Case No. 640/21123/22 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the personnel commission regarding the non-Detailed Passing of Attestation and Order on Prosecutor’s Dismissal.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– For appeals in public service cases, a one-month term is established
– The plaintiff became aware of the violation of their rights on March 3, 2021, when first filing a lawsuit challenging the personnel commission’s decision
– The fact that the previous lawsuit was withdrawn does not change the initial calculation date of the term
– Missing the one-month term without valid reasons deprives a person of the right to judicial protection
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions – unchanged.
The court clearly adhered to procedural norms and consistently substantiated the impossibility of reinstating the missed term.
Case No. 711/12517/14-а dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in a case of social insurance for an industrial accident.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, PERSON_1 did not comply with procedural requirements for filing a review application, specifically did not indicate essential circumstances unknown during the previous case review. Second, the applicant significantly missed the term for filing such an application – almost 3 years after receiving the previous court decision. Third, PERSON_1’s previous attempts to appeal the decision were also improperly formatted.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision to return the application without consideration.
Case No. 280/7407/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s actions regarding refusal to conduct full pension indexation.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Legislation provides for annual pension indexation by increasing the average salary indicator with coefficients determined by the Cabinet of Ministers.
2. The Pension Fund incorrectly performed indexation, establishing only monthly surcharges instead of actual pension recalculation using increase coefficients.
3. The court considered procedural terms and partially protected the plaintiff’s rights – from 07.02.2024, as the lawsuit was filed within the six-month term.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from 07.02.2024 using increase coefficients 1.11, 1.14, 1.197, and 1.0796.
Case No. 360/2102/22 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the refusal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine to transfer a person from disability pension to service pension.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions, which clearly defined that for persons dismissed from police and applying after 19.02.2022, pension assignment is carried out exclusively based on calendar service years. The court established that at the time of the plaintiff’s application (11.11.2022), calendar service years were 20 years, which is insufficient for service pension assignment, therefore the Pension Fund’s refusal is lawful.
Court Decision – leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 420/25964/23 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to compel Odesa Lyceum No. 3 to bring the protective structure (shelter) into a suitable condition for population sheltering.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– A prosecutor can represent state interests in court only if the relevant authority does not exercise or improperly exercises interest protection
– The State Emergency Service and regional military administration do not have legislatively defined powers to independently appeal to court with such requirements
– There are no clear legislative grounds for filing a lawsuit about bringingCase on Bringing a Protective Shelter into Proper Condition
3. Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the previous court decisions – unchanged, that is, to return the statement of claim to the prosecutor’s office.
Case No. 240/23781/23 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Labor Inspectorate’s resolution on imposing a fine on a private entrepreneur for allegedly unregistered employees.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The State Labor Inspectorate did not provide irrefutable evidence of employment relations between the private entrepreneur and persons considered unregistered employees
– The inspection report lacks proper evidence about the nature of these persons’ work
– The mere presence of persons during the inspection is not evidence of employment relations
– Individuals were not identified, their explanations were not taken, and the inspection visit process was not recorded
3. Court Decision: To uphold the previous court decisions on canceling the State Labor Inspectorate’s resolution and fine.
The court decision clearly demonstrates that to bring someone to responsibility for unregistered employees, irrefutable evidence of employment relations is required.
Case No. 480/6649/22 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to compel a private entrepreneur through court to bring a civil protection shelter into proper technical condition.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The State Emergency Service does not have legally defined powers to independently apply to court with such requirements
– A prosecutor can represent state interests only if the authorized body improperly protects interests or such body is absent
– Legislative changes did not grant the State Emergency Service the right to file lawsuits about bringing protective shelters into proper condition
3. Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, supporting the appellate court’s decision to leave the claim without consideration.
Important: The court clearly pointed out the need for direct legislative regulation of government bodies’ powers to apply to court.
Case No. 280/3869/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Zaporizhzhia City Council’s decision on amending the procedure for municipal property lease.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Zaporizhzhia City Council’s decision has characteristics of a regulatory legal act, as it establishes general rules for regulating municipal property lease relations.
2. The Supreme Court deviates from previous appellate court practices and clearly defines that such disputes belong to administrative court jurisdiction.
3. The court emphasized that the local self-government body makes decisions within its administrative management functions, and therefore the dispute has a public law nature.
Court Decision: To cancel the appellate administrative court’s resolution and send the case for new consideration.
Case No. 240/22181/23 dated 18/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office challenged the State Geological Survey protocol and special permit for subsoil use issued to LLC “Gabro Plus”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Change in judicial practice is not a valid reason for restoring an expired lawsuit filing deadline
– Lawsuit filing deadlines ensure legal certainty and equality of parties
– The prosecutor did not prove objective circumstances that made timely lawsuit filing impossible
– Restoring the deadline without special grounds may create unjustified privileges for the state
3. Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and previous court decisions unchanged.
Important: The court clearly indicated that a change in judicial practice is not grounds for “resetting” lawsuit filing deadlines.
Case No. 140/33468/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: ChallengingDispute over the issuance of a tax notice-decision regarding VAT calculation on transportation expenses incurred by LLC “Como-Export” while executing a commission agreement.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Previous instance courts did not establish all circumstances of the case, specifically did not conduct a detailed analysis of documents regarding the nature of transportation services provided.
2. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between international transportation services and forwarding services to correctly determine the VAT rate.
3. Courts should have provided a proper assessment of evidence from the controlling authority and establish the distribution of expenses in relevant acts and documents.
Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the case circumstances.Invalid transaction on participant’s exit, cancellation of registration actions, and obligation to return the share in the authorized capital.
Case No. 320/39247/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of professional legal assistance expenses in full amount of 6,000 UAH instead of partially satisfied 3,000 UAH by lower instance courts.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The respondent did not submit any objections regarding the amount of legal assistance expenses.
2. Lower instance courts independently reduced the expense amount without the respondent’s motion, which is a procedural violation.
3. Documents submitted by the plaintiff confirm the incurred legal assistance expenses in full amount of 6,000 UAH.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint and recover in favor of the plaintiff the full amount of legal assistance expenses – 6,000 UAH at the expense of the respondent’s budget allocations.
Case No. 440/10969/21 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate (SACI) order on suspension of LLC “SHLYAKHREMBUD No. 17” license for construction activities.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– In August 2019, during a scheduled inspection, numerous license condition violations were identified by the enterprise, particularly regarding personnel, technical support, and documentation.
– At the time of issuing the order, the licensing authority had the power to suspend the license according to Licensing Procedure No. 1396.
– Identified violations created risks of negative consequences in economic activities.
– The enterprise mostly eliminated violations after the license suspension order was issued.
3. Court Decision: Upheld the SACI order on suspension of LLC “SHLYAKHREMBUD No. 17” license.
The Supreme Court supported the position that the licensing authority’s actions were lawful and justified.
Case No. 852/2а-6/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Forced alienation of land plot and residential house from PERSON_1 with motives of public necessity for expanding the sanitary protection zone of PJSC “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff did not follow the legally established land plot purchase procedure, specifically did not offer the respondent alternative housing, as required by law.
2. No evidence of impossibility to achieve public purpose by another method and proportionality of forced alienation of the owner’s only housing.
3. Proposed compensation does not meet legal requirements for full property value reimbursement, including lost profits.
Court Decision: Reject the claim for forced alienation of land plot and residential house.
Case No. 460/4358/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Pension Fund’s inaction regarding incorrect pension indexation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court established that pension indexation should apply the average salary indicator directly considered when pension was assigned, not a fixed indicator as of 01.10.2017.
2. Procedure No. 124 does not comply with the second part of Article 42 of the Pension Insurance Law, as it artificially restricts the indexation mechanism.
3. The right to indexation is not absolute and is limited by a six-month period for court appeal.
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – recognize the Pension Fund’s inaction as unlawful and oblige to conduct pension indexation from 24.10.2023 using appropriate coefficients.
Case No. 120/14254/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of applying penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaint1. The taxpayer registered tax invoices with violation of the terms established by law in August and December 2022.
2. The court established that at the moment of registration term violation, the provisions of paragraph 120-1.1 of Article 120-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine were in effect, which provide for penalties in the amount of 10-40% of the VAT amount.
3. The court clearly determined that the provisions of paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine do not have retroactive effect and cannot be applied to legal relations that arose before their entry into force.
Court decision: Reject the company’s claim and recognize the tax notification-decision of the controlling body on the application of penalties as lawful.
Case No. 910/113/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Claim by LLC “Otato” for eviction of OSBB “Central Park” from a non-residential premises with an area of 12.9 m2.
Main arguments of the court:
1. To satisfy a negatory claim, it is necessary to prove the existence of ownership rights and real obstacles in using the property.
2. The appellate court prematurely satisfied the claim without establishing the actual circumstances of the case and without proving the violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances, in particular the presence/absence of obstacles in using the property.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and send the case for a new review to further study the circumstances.
Case No. 300/936/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of dispute: A civil servant’s right to recalculate a pension assigned under the old civil service legislation based on new salary certificates.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Current legislation does not provide a mechanism for recalculating civil servants’ pensions due to changes in the salaries of working civil servants.
2. The Constitutional Court’s decision of 23.12.2022 declared unconstitutional the norm that makes pension recalculation impossible, but until the issue is regulated by the Verkhovna Rada, recalculation is not possible.
3. Transition to a pension under another law is possible only if the new pension amount will not be less than the previous one.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, i.e., deny the plaintiff’s request for pension recalculation.
Case No. 300/2457/19 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of damages from the State Budget of Ukraine due to improper taxation of a retired judge’s lifetime monetary maintenance.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court pointed out that the previous instance courts formally approached the case consideration and did not establish key circumstances. Firstly, they did not identify the proper defendant in the case. Secondly, they did not investigate evidence regarding the existence and amount of damage. Thirdly, they did not provide a legal assessment of all parties’ arguments. The court emphasized that the absence of a special law cannot be a basis for refusing to compensate for damage caused by an unconstitutional act.
3. Court decision: Cancel the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and send the case for a new review for a complete and comprehensive investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 905/573/24 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement in the amount of 4,588,711.76 UAH from several defendants.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Person_1 missed the appeal term by more than 5 months
– The court sent judicial documents to the official address of the defendant, which he himself specified
– The fact of not receiving correspondence is not a valid reason for renewing the procedural term
– The defendant had the opportunity to learn about the court decision earlier, sinceTranslation:
On 12.12.2024, filed a complaint about enforcement proceedings
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 160/13345/24 dated 20/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: A serviceman demanded accrual and payment of indexation of monetary allowance for the period from 2016 to 2019.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Indexation of monetary allowance is a state guarantee of payment for military personnel
– In March 2018, there was an increase in income, which affects the indexation calculation
– The respondent’s powers regarding indexation payment are not discretionary
– Previous instance courts incorrectly refused to determine the specific amount of indexation
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to determine the specific indexation amount and sent the case for a new review to calculate the amounts due to the plaintiff in detail.
Case No. 380/13118/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolution of Ukrtranssafety on imposing an administrative and economic fine on the vehicle owner for lack of documents during cargo transportation.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The vehicle owner cannot be automatically considered a carrier
– To determine the carrier, it is necessary to establish: whether the person is a business entity, whether a transportation contract is concluded, whether the vehicle is used on legal grounds
– The Ukrtranssafety body did not prove that the plaintiff is a motor carrier and attracted him solely based on registration documents
3. Court Decision: Maintain the previous court decisions on canceling the Ukrtranssafety resolution and refuse to satisfy the cassation complaint.
Note: The court actually deviates from previous practice, clearly defining the criteria for establishing carrier status.
Case No. 759/13645/15-c dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Foreclosure on the mortgage subject (apartment) under a credit agreement between the bank “Finance and Credit” and an individual.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The State Mortgage Institution acquired the creditor’s rights under the assignment of claim, but the issue of procedural succession was not resolved by the court of first instance.
2. The appellate court unreasonably renewed the term for appellate appeal without verifying the real reasons for missing the term.
3. References to frequent power outages and air raid alerts as a reason for missing the term were not properly verified and substantiated.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Court and send the case for a new review to the appellate court from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 756/10559/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case about a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of narcotic drugs).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation complaint of the defense counsel, discovered significant procedural violations in previous court decisions. Presumably, procedural errors were made in previous instances or the circumstances of the case were incorrectly established, which could affect the objectivity of the verdict. The court concluded that to ensure a complete and comprehensive review of the case, a new trial is necessary.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and appointed a new trial in the court of first instance, and also released the defendant from custody in the courtroom.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Signature is a mandatory requisite of a legal transaction, and its absence may lead to the nullity of the contract.
2. The court deviates from previous practice and notes that a transaction that has not been executed (concluded) cannot be declared invalid.
3. Signature expertise was conducted on a document copy, which raises doubts about its authenticity.
4. The previous court decision in case No. 185/8369/15-c has prejudicial significance and confirms the fact of concluding a surety agreement.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to recognize the surety agreement as not executed and invalid, modifying the reasoning part of the decision.
Case No. 235/3132/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for Moral Damage to an Employee Who Received a Severe Industrial Injury in a Mine
Main Court Arguments:
1. The accident occurred due to the employer’s fault, who did not provide proper safe working conditions.
2. As a result of the injury, the plaintiff lost 70% of working capacity, became a second-group disabled person, and requires prolonged treatment, which caused him significant moral suffering.
3. The court considered the severity of the injury, its impact on the employee’s future life, and determined a fair compensation for moral damage – 500,000 UAH.
Court Decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances and reject the enterprise’s cassation appeal, recovering 500,000 UAH of moral damage in favor of the victim.
Case No. 140/415/20 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Damage Caused by an Unconstitutional Law That Taxed Pensions Above a Certain Amount
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in previous court decisions. First, courts did not determine whether the law’s version before 2016 was indeed unconstitutional. Second, courts did not establish the proper defendant – the state must be represented by the relevant body that directly caused the damage. Moreover, courts did not fully investigate all case circumstances and evidence.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to establish all circumstances and determine the proper defendant.
Case No. 420/20843/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Agricultural Society Challenges Tax Authority’s Decision Refusing Registration of Tax Invoice for Corn Sale
Main Court Arguments: First, the plaintiff significantly missed the legally established six-month term for court appeal (over two years). Second, the reasons for missing the term (technical problems, document relocation, absence of director) were not recognized by the court as valid, as the society had previously appealed to court with similar claims. Third, the court emphasized that the right to court appeal is not absolute and can be limited by procedural terms to ensure legal certainty.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling to leave the claim without consideration due to missed procedural term.
Case No. 916/808/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring Invalid the Landlord’s Notification of Unilateral Termination of State Property Lease Agreement
Main Court Arguments:
– The Supreme Court established that the special law “On Lease of State and Municipal Property” takes precedence over general Civil Code norms. This law does not provide for unilateral termination of a state property lease agreement without a court decision. The lease agreement can only be terminated by mutual consent of the parties.Here is the translation:
Lease or by court decision.
3. Court Decision: Declare invalid the landlord’s notification of unilateral termination of the lease agreement dated 08.02.2024 No. 11-07-00516.
Key Thesis: The landlord does not have the right to independently terminate a state property lease agreement without a court decision.
Case No. 440/18385/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Poltava Region unlawful regarding amendments to the integrated taxpayer card by excluding tax debt information.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position on the lawfulness of refusing to open appellate proceedings due to missing the appeal deadline without valid reasons. The court emphasized that participants in the judicial process must conscientiously exercise procedural rights, and the respondent did not provide convincing arguments regarding the reasons for untimely submission of the appellate complaint and motion to restore the deadline.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Poltava Region unsatisfied, and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 620/3145/19 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions on VAT accrual for pigs destroyed due to African swine fever outbreak.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The farm was forced to destroy pigs due to the African swine fever epidemic by decision of the state commission
– The controlling authority did not prove the obligation to accrue tax liabilities for destroyed biological assets
– It was not established whether the destroyed pigs were current biological assets or fixed assets
– Destruction occurred not at the farm’s initiative, but due to force majeure circumstances
3. Court Decision: Leave unchanged the appellate court ruling on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions.
Interestingly, the court essentially sided with the taxpayer, recognizing the tax service’s actions as improper in the situation of forced animal destruction.
Case No. 120/4999/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on applying penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court deviates from previous practice and clearly defines that the “COVID” moratorium on penalties does not apply during martial law.
2. The provisions of paragraphs 89, 90 of subsection 2 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine do not have retroactive effect and do not apply to legal relations that arose before their entry into force.
3. Paragraph 11 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine does not change the temporal boundaries of new norms’ application, but only indicates the application of a reduced penalty amount within one legal norm.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and refused to satisfy the administrative claim of LLC “Construction and Installation Firm “Etalon-Bud”, leaving the tax notification-decision in force.
Case No. 580/5424/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of Private Enterprise “PAMIR-A” unlawful regarding improper maintenance of a civil protection shelter in Cherkasy city.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecutor did not prove that the authorities (State Emergency Service, city council, military administration) do not have or improperly exercise state interest protection.
2. Legislation does not provide direct right for these bodies to go to court demanding the shelter be brought to readiness.
3. The prosecutor did not cite specific legislative norms allowing the chosen method of protecting the violated right.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court rulings unchanged, i.e., return the claimHere is the translation of the legal text:
Case No. 520/16196/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Obligation of the housing and communal enterprise “Donetske” to bring the civil protection shelter into proper technical condition.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Emergency Service (SES) is not legally empowered to independently file a lawsuit to bring protective structures to readiness.
2. The prosecutor cannot replace the authority that has the right to protect state interests if it is capable of doing so independently.
3. The prosecutor’s appeal to the court is possible only in exceptional cases when the authority does not exercise or improperly exercises the protection of state interests.
Court decision: To leave the resolution of the appellate administrative court unchanged, partially modifying its reasoning part.
Case No. 465/2671/17 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Official forgery of administrative offense protocols committed by police officers.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court improperly verified the evidence in the case, ignoring the instructions of the cassation court.
2. District court resolutions on administrative offenses do not have prejudicial significance for the criminal case.
3. The appellate court unjustifiably recognized the evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation as inadmissible.
Court decision: To cancel the resolution of the Lviv Appellate Court and assign a new hearing in the appellate court taking into account the provided instructions.
Case No. 906/906/21 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt under a natural gas transportation agreement and reimbursement of legal assistance expenses.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court thoroughly analyzed the legitimacy of legal assistance expenses
– Established that legal services expenses are confirmed by appropriate documents
– Recognized partial recovery of legal assistance expenses from the defendant as justified
– Confirmed the correctness of judicial expenses distribution by the appellate court
3. Court decision: To leave cassation complaints without satisfaction, and the resolution of the appellate commercial court – unchanged.
Important: The court clearly adhered to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in determining judicial expenses.
Case No. 380/29209/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Supreme Court established that for tax invoices drawn up before 08.02.2023, fines under the old rules apply (paragraph 120-1.1 of Article 120-1 of the Tax Code).
2. New paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code do not have retroactive effect and are applied only to invoices drawn up after 08.02.2023.
3. The court confirmed the legitimacy of applying different fine amounts: for invoices from 2022 – under old rules, for invoices from 2023 – under new rules.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and denied the company’s claim, supporting the correctness of the fine calculation by the tax authority.
Case No. 161/21931/23 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recognition of the right to exclude a service apartment from the list of service apartments for further privatization.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The apartment is located in the administrative building of a fire station and is a service apartment
– Exclusion of service housing is a right, not an obligation of the employer
– The decision on classifying the apartment as service is validHere is the translation of the text into English:
– It was not challenged by them
– The plaintiff’s father was dismissed under an employment contract, not as a civil protection officer
3. Court Decision: Deny the claim to exclude the apartment from the service housing category.
The court clearly maintained the position that a service apartment remains service housing, despite the long-term residence of the plaintiff’s family.
Case No. 320/8229/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Appellate Court believed that the moratorium on penalties (paragraph 52-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine) expired on May 27, 2022, in connection with the introduction of martial law.
– The Supreme Court drew attention that the appellate court did not investigate all grounds of the claim, in particular regarding the violation of the taxpayer’s right to participate in decision-making and the principle of fair balance.
– The court pointed out the need for a comprehensive and complete investigation of all circumstances of the case.
3. Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate court and send the case for a new review.
: The Supreme Court is essentially departing from its previous position on interpreting the moratorium on penalties during martial law.
Case No. 160/24214/24 dated 20/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order of the State Tax Service on revoking the license for the production of alcoholic beverages for LLC “Alcohol-Non-Alcoholic Combine “Dnipro”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Interim measures must be proportionate and adequate to the claims
– The plaintiff did not prove that the license revocation would lead to a complete cessation of its activities
– The company has other licenses for alcohol production and alcohol trade
– There are no obvious grounds to believe that the non-application of interim measures would complicate the execution of the court decision
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and denied the application for interim measures.
Case No. 260/6734/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notification-decisions regarding VAT calculation for international air transportation during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff entered into a contract for international air transportation before the full-scale invasion, and therefore could not foresee the impossibility of flight execution.
2. The introduction of martial law does not suspend the effect of contractual obligations, including advance payments.
3. The controlling body prematurely concluded the impossibility of transportation, as the inspection was conducted before the start of the summer season.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized the tax notification-decisions as unlawful.
Case No. 380/11918/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the refusal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia Region to conduct pension indexation using coefficients 1.197 and 1.0796.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Legislation provides for annual pension indexation from March 1 by increasing the average wage indicator.
2. The Cabinet of Ministers has the right to establish the indexation procedure but cannot artificially limit the basic calculation value.
3. Establishing a monthly supplement of 100 UAH instead of full indexation violates the pensioner’s rights to proper social security.
Court Decision: Satisfy the claim of PERSON_1, oblige the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation with coefficients 1.197 and 1.0796.
Case No. 2-2116/11 dated 13/03/2025Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Granting permission to a private executor to recover real estate (apartment) where minor children are registered.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Legislation requires mandatory obtaining permission from the guardianship and custody authority to sell real estate where children have the right of use.
2. In this case, the apartment is actually used as a cafe, not as housing, so the children’s registration is considered an artificial obstacle to executing the court decision.
3. The court verified the debtor’s good faith actions and established that the children’s registration occurred without the mortgagee’s permission and is not related to actual residence.
Court Decision: Allow the private executor to recover the real estate.
Important: The court emphasized that protecting children’s interests is a priority, but in this case, their interests are not violated.
[Case No. 520/35264/23 dated 20/03/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of average monetary support for the delay in settlement upon dismissal of a serviceman.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the previous court decision in case No. 520/3474/23 was canceled, and this has a prejudicial significance for considering the current case. The court concluded that canceling a decision establishing prejudice is grounds for reviewing the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances. Previously, courts mistakenly believed that the circumstances referred to by the applicant did not meet the characteristics of newly discovered circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled previous court decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
[Case No. 697/1980/20 dated 20/03/2025]
The case concerns compensation for material and moral damages caused by a road traffic accident.
The court thoroughly analyzed procedural norms regarding recovery of legal assistance expenses. The main arguments were: existence of a legal assistance agreement, absence of objections from the defendant regarding the amount of expenses, compliance with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness of court expenses. The court took into account that the lawyer provided specific services – legal consultation and preparation of a response in the case.
The Supreme Court decided to recover 10,000 UAH of professional legal assistance expenses from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 when reviewing the case in the cassation instance.
[Case No. 2602/5125/12 dated 19/03/2025]
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from the debtor and guarantors.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Kyiv Court of Appeal violated PERSON_2’s right to participate in the court session by not ensuring the possibility of connecting to the video conference, despite a previously issued ruling on such procedure for case consideration.
2. The appellate court ignored its own decision about the party’s participation via video conference and considered the case without proper notification and ensuring the defendant’s participation.
3. The Supreme Court believes that limiting a party’s right to participate in a court session is sufficient grounds for canceling the appellate court’s decision.
Court Decision: Cancel the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling regarding debt recovery and send the case for a new review to the appellate court.
[Case No. 440/18162/23 dated 20/03/2025]
Subject of Dispute – Legitimacy of the order to bring a serviceman to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a reprimand.
Main Court Arguments: First, the plaintiff received the order on May 12, 2023, but applied to the court only on December 11, 2023, missing the one-month period. Second, the court established thatThe document was officially registered and actually provided to the plaintiff for review, therefore their explanation about lack of information is unfounded. Thirdly, the court considers that the plaintiff did not prove valid reasons for missing the court appeal deadline.
Court decision – to leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, that is, to confirm previous court decisions on leaving the claim without consideration.
Case No. 420/30424/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Limited Liability Company challenges tax notifications-decisions issued by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Odesa Oblast.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal violated procedural norms by considering the case in written proceedings without proper notification of the parties. The court emphasized that the transition to written proceedings occurred without compliance with legally established grounds, in particular, contrary to the objections of the defendant’s representative. The principles of adversarial proceedings, equality of parties, and the right to a fair trial were violated.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 320/2713/20 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute – application of response measures by the Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Kyiv Oblast to the Limited Liability Company “Vyshnevе Construction and Engineering”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court ruling requires review. The panel of judges identified procedural violations in the administrative appellate court’s decision that could have influenced the final outcome of the case. In particular, the court believes that the previous case review did not provide a complete and objective assessment of all circumstances and evidence.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal and refer the case for a new judicial review.
Case No. 338/1853/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging a court decision on releasing a person from serving a probationary sentence for a traffic accident with fatal consequences.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court groundlessly released the convicted person from serving the sentence without providing adequate motives. The court drew attention to the severity of the crime – the driver was exceeding the speed twice and ran over an elderly pedestrian, resulting in the victim’s death. The appellate court did not take into account the social danger of the committed act and did not substantiate the possibility of correcting the person without actual serving of the sentence.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 761/964/19 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings against a person suspected of drug-related crimes due to the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the indictment was sent to the court after the expiration of the two-month pre-trial investigation period established by law. Secondly, the prosecutor did not provide convincing evidence that the indictment was sent to the court in a timely manner. Thirdly, the incriminated crimes do not belong to serious or especially serious crimes against a person’s life and health, therefore, there are no grounds for extending the investigation period.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court rulings on closing the criminal proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 1.380.2019.001584 dated 19/03/Here is the translation of the legal text:
Case No. 500/8168/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decisions of the Lviv Customs Office regarding the adjustment of customs value for imported used clothing, footwear, and household items.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff (LLC “SMM Group”) provided a complete package of documents to confirm the customs value of goods.
2. The customs office did not prove the existence of discrepancies or inaccuracies in the submitted documents.
3. Previously, similar goods were cleared through customs at the same price without any remarks.
4. The decisions on customs value adjustment did not contain a detailed justification for the price change.
Court Decision: To leave the previous court decisions on canceling the Lviv Customs Office’s decisions on customs value adjustment unchanged.
Case No. 917/2139/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt and penalties under a foreign economic contract for goods supply between Ukrainian and Georgian companies.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that there is a debt under the contract between the companies, which was partially settled by an agreement on offsetting counterclaims.
2. The court deviated from previous practice regarding penalty calculation in foreign currency, indicating the need to consider the specifics of legal relations, particularly the involvement of a non-resident.
3. The court recognized that previous court decisions have procedural and substantive deficiencies in terms of calculating and recovering penalties.
Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions regarding penalty recovery and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed analysis of penalty calculation circumstances.
Case No. 925/36/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of an additional agreement to an electricity distribution contract regarding the exclusion of common house meters from calculations.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The appellate court incorrectly assessed evidence and did not establish grounds for contract modification
– The contract conditions and regulatory acts governing such legal relations were not properly investigated
– The court did not verify the existence of grounds for contract amendments in accordance with Articles 651, 652 of the Civil Code
– The appellate court prematurely concluded on satisfying the claim
Court Decision: To cancel the appellate court ruling and refer the case for a new review.
Case No. 903/601/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of infrastructure development contribution from a housing construction cooperative in the amount of 1,722,717.25 UAH for the construction of a multi-apartment residential building in Lutsk.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The defendant did not apply to the city council in 2020 to determine the amount of infrastructure contribution, which is a violation of legislation.
2. Despite the cancellation of the obligation to conclude infrastructure contribution agreements from 01.01.2020, the developer still had to pay funds before the facility’s commissioning.
3. The infrastructure contribution amount is calculated by the formula: (18,737.00 UAH * 4Translation:
597.1 sq.m.)*2%, confirmed by official construction cost indicators.
Court Decision: To recover from the Service Cooperative “Housing Construction Cooperative “Supernova” in favor of Lutsk City Council 1,722,717.25 UAH of share participation.
Case No. 904/1582/22 dated 18/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast against the bankrupt municipal enterprise “Dniprodzerzhynsk Housing Association” regarding land tax.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. After opening the liquidation procedure, the debtor does not incur additional tax payment obligations.
2. The tax authority did not prove that the tax obligation arose before the opening of the liquidation procedure.
3. Submission of declarations by the debtor after being declared bankrupt does not create grounds for tax obligations.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., to reject the monetary claims of the tax authority for the amount of 47,850.23 UAH.
Case No. 620/5694/24 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the inaction of the Ladany Village Council as unlawful regarding not bringing the anti-radiation shelter No. 94139 into proper condition.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecutor did not prove the existence of special legislative grounds for filing a lawsuit for either the Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service or the district state administration.
2. Legislation does not provide for the right of the State Emergency Service and local state administrations to independently file lawsuits about bringing protective structures to readiness.
3. The prosecutor did not cite specific legal norms that would grant the plaintiffs he identified the right to such a lawsuit.
Court Decision: To leave the resolution of the appellate administrative court unchanged, modifying its reasoning part.
The Court deviated from previous judicial practice, in particular from the decision in case No. 820/4717/16, explaining this by differences in circumstances and legislation.
Case No. 520/16198/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office attempted to compel a housing and communal services enterprise to bring a civil protection protective structure (anti-radiation shelter) into proper technical condition.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The prosecutor can represent state interests only in two cases: if the authority does not provide protection or does so improperly
– The State Emergency Service does not have the authority to independently file such a lawsuit
– The prosecutor cannot replace the authority that can protect state interests
– Changes in legislation in 2022 did not provide the State Emergency Service with additional powers for such lawsuits
3. Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, supporting the appellate court’s decision to leave the lawsuit without consideration.
Case No. 2-2408/11 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Granting permission to a private executor to enforce collection on the debtor’s immovable property, in which a minor child is registered.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Debtor PERSON_1 did not fulfill the court decision on collecting credit debt, and the registration of minor PERSON_3 in the apartment after the court decision was considered an attempt to avoid responsibility.
2. The child’s mother PERSON_4 has her own apartment, therefore PERSON_3 is not the child of the mortgagor, which makes an absolute prohibition on property sale impossible.
3. The private executor has the right to apply to court to obtain permission to sell the property if the guardianship and trusteeship authority refuses.
Court Decision: The private executor’s submission to grant permission to enforce collection on the debtor’s immovable property was satisfied.Translation of the provided legal texts:
Case No. 910/7738/24 dated 19/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Shareholders’ Meeting Decisions of Private JSC “VK “Ukrnaftaburinnia” and Cancellation of Registration Actions.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff’s corporate rights were arrested in criminal proceedings
– Assets were transferred to management of PJSC “Ukrnafta” by order of the Cabinet of Ministers in exceptional cases
– The manager has the right to act without coordination with the shareholder in such a special procedure
– The plaintiff is temporarily restricted in corporate rights and cannot challenge meeting decisions
3. Court Decision: Reject the claim, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Key Conclusion: In exceptional cases of managing arrested assets, the owner loses the right to control corporate processes.
Case No. 917/1241/23 dated 20/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Cooperative’s Shareholders Meeting Decision on Accepting Deceased Member’s Heirs as Members.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The cooperative’s charter does not restrict the number of heirs who can be accepted as members
– The plaintiff did not provide evidence of sole right to the garage
– The plaintiff was properly notified about the general meeting
– The decision to accept heirs was made in accordance with legislation and the cooperative’s charter
3. Court Decision: Leave previous court decisions unchanged, reject the claim.
The court professionally and thoroughly analyzed all case circumstances, verifying compliance with procedural and substantive legal norms in the membership decision.
Case No. 160/9197/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions of LLC “Nafto-Trade” regarding additional tax and penalty assessments following a scheduled documentary inspection.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Operations for creating new enterprises are real, confirmed by primary documents, and do not show signs of artificial business transaction formation.
2. Fuel and lubricant materials write-off was performed according to established enterprise norms, confirmed by primary documents and accounting data.
3. Dividend accrual occurred proportionally to participants’ shares in the authorized capital, corresponding to legislative requirements.
Court Decision: Cassation complaint partially satisfied, appellate court ruling canceled, case referred for new consideration to the appellate administrative court for comprehensive circumstances investigation.
Case No. 560/1015/24 dated 20/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Average Earnings for Delay in Settlement upon Employee Dismissal.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court established that when calculating compensation for settlement delay upon dismissal, the period should be divided into two stages: before July 19, 2022 (without time limitation) and after July 19, 2022 (limited to 6 months). Previous instance courts incorrectly applied legal norms, simultaneously using both six-month period and proportionality principle.
3. Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the first instance court to recalculate compensation considering the Supreme Court’s legal position.
Case No. 120/12668/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Military Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges military units’ inaction regarding non-payment of additional remuneration for participation in combat operations in Chernihiv and Sumy regions.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
and in 2022.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court prematurely rejected the claim without conducting a comprehensive analysis of the provided evidence. The court drew attention that the absence of formal documents cannot automatically deprive a serviceman of the right to compensation if there is other evidence of his participation in combat operations. The court pointed out a change in approaches to determining “direct participation” in combat operations compared to previous orders.
Court decision: The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s resolution and sent the case for a new review to the Seventh Appellate Administrative Court to fully clarify all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 620/15334/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions on penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URPI).
2. Main arguments of the court:
The court essentially changed the previous position regarding the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
– A moratorium on penalties was in effect from March 1, 2020, to May 26, 2022
– After May 26, 2022, controlling authorities can apply penalties
– For invoices issued from February 1 to May 31, 2022, a preferential registration period until July 15, 2022, is provided
– Penalty amounts depend on the date of invoice preparation and registration
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaints, cancel the appellate court’s decision in certain parts, and send the case for a new review.
Key thesis: The court seeks to ensure a fair approach to taxpayers under martial law and quarantine restrictions.
Case No. 520/7034/19 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service, which increased the monetary obligations of LLC “RAT” for income tax and VAT.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff’s business transactions with contractors are real, confirmed by primary documents.
2. The court deviated from previous judicial practice, which considered that transactions of fictitious enterprises cannot be legalized.
3. The controlling authority did not prove that the company acted in bad faith or without due diligence in conducting business transactions.
Court decision: Maintain the decisions of previous instances and reject the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service’s cassation complaint, i.e., cancel the tax notifications-decisions.
Case No. 707/564/24 dated 12/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Compensation for moral damages and lost earnings for a person who was illegally subjected to criminal liability.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff suffered moral damage due to illegal criminal prosecution for 63 months and 29 days
– The court established that the fact of causing moral damage is presumed as a result of illegal criminal proceedings
– When determining the amount of moral damage, the duration and intensity of suffering were taken into account
– The compensation amount (431,486.72 UAH) was recognized as fair and justified
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the claim – maintain the decision on compensation for moral damages, but send the case for a new review regarding lost earnings to further clarify the circumstances of the plaintiff’s income during dismissal.
Case No. 457/225/13-ц dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Replacement of the debtor in enforcement proceedings after the death of the original debtor and the legitimacy of the private executor’s actions regarding the return of the writ of execution.
Main argumentsCourt:
1. The court established that PERSON_1 was not properly notified about the court session where the issue of debtor replacement was considered, which is a gross violation of procedural norms.
2. According to procedural legislation, consideration of a case in the absence of a participant who was not notified about the date, time, and place of the court session is an unconditional basis for canceling the court decision.
3. The Court of Appeal incorrectly applied procedural law norms by modifying the first instance court ruling instead of canceling it, as required by law.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the resolution of the Lviv Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 348/691/21 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict in a criminal case concerning violation of road safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in previous court decisions that do not allow a comprehensive and objective examination of the criminal proceedings circumstances. The court believes that the Court of Appeal did not properly investigate the case materials and did not provide a complete legal assessment of the offense circumstances. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new appellate review to further study all case circumstances.
Court Decision: Cassation complaints partially satisfied, the appellate court ruling canceled, a new review in the appellate court ordered.
Case No. 904/3223/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of land lease agreement and its return to the owner due to non-payment of lease payments.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The court drew attention to fundamentally important points regarding the interpretation of systematic non-payment of lease fees. First, systematic means two or more cases of non-payment. Second, if partial non-payment (underpayment) occurs, the general rule about material breach of contract applies, not the special norm about systematic non-payment. Third, the court emphasized the need for a detailed clarification of the period and amount of non-payment/underpayment of lease fees.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly establish the circumstances of lease payment non-payment.
Case No. 910/4964/21 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of Annexes 1-8 to the agreement on providing cargo transportation services by rail.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Company joined the agreement on the Railway’s terms, i.e., it is an adhesion contract under Article 634 of the Civil Code.
2. The plaintiff was fully aware of the contract terms and had the opportunity to refuse it but continued to use the services.
3. The plaintiff’s letters about terminating services do not constitute an official notification of terminating Annexes 1-8 according to the contract terms.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to terminate Annexes 1-8 to the contract, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 947/8865/24 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the appellate court ruling on returning the appellate complaint of a municipal enterprise representative regarding property arrest within criminal proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the municipal enterprise representative provided a properly certified power of attorney confirming his authority to appeal. Second, the appellate court’s requirement to provide a passport copy is unfounded, as current legislation does not contain such a mandatory attachment. Third, the cassation instance court believes that the appellate court unreasonably restricted the representative’s right to appeal the court decision.Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court ruling and assign a new case review.
Case No. 160/18141/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and cancelling a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine cannot be applied to tax invoices compiled and registered before their entry into force. The court concluded that since the tax invoices were compiled in 2022 when standard registration terms were in effect, the fine should be calculated according to the general rules of Article 120-1 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.
Court Decision: The cassation complaint was partially satisfied, the appellate court ruling was cancelled, and the case was sent for a new review to further clarify the circumstances regarding the registration date of each tax invoice.
Case No. 462/2590/15-ц dated 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the dismissal of the Ukrzaliznytsia General Director in 2014.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 was dismissed without a clearly defined legal basis
– Dismissal documents did not specify specific violations of official duties
– The plaintiff missed the one-month term for court appeal without valid reasons
– The fact of appealing to an administrative court is not grounds for restoring the procedural term
3. Court Decision: Deny the claim for reinstatement and recovery of salary.
Important: The court thoroughly analyzed the dismissal procedure and concluded that there were no formal grounds for cancelling the dismissal.
Case No. 206/4992/21 dated 24/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Division of a joint marital apartment and determining shares after marriage dissolution.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 had significant child support debt for a child with disabilities
– The child requires constant care and has special needs
– PERSON_1 did not actually live with or support the child
– The court decided these circumstances are grounds for reducing PERSON_1’s share in joint ownership
3. Court Decision: Recognize PERSON_1’s right to 1/3 of the apartment, and PERSON_2’s right to 2/3 of the shares.
Note: The court deviated from previous judicial practice that did not consider child support debt as a basis for changing property shares.
Case No. 320/26559/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman PERSON_1 challenging the appellate court ruling refusing to restore the term for appealing the first instance court decision.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of valid reasons for missing the appeal term, despite references to being abroad for mother’s treatment.
2. The court decision was delivered to the plaintiff’s electronic cabinet on July 31, 2024, and the appeal was filed only on October 3, 2024, thus missing the legally established term.
3. Documents provided by the plaintiff (medical certificates, ticket copies) were not recognized by the court as valid evidence of valid reasons for missing the term.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the appellate court’s decision to refuse restoration of the procedural term.
Case No. 348/691/21 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of traffic rules violation resulting in human death and bodily injuries.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court conducted a detailed analysis1. The court analyzed the circumstances of sentencing PERSON_9 and concluded that suspension of sentence is unjustified.
2. The court took into account the severity of the crime – death of a person and bodily injuries resulting from speeding in a populated area.
3. The appellate court formally approached the verification of case circumstances, not properly examining the arguments of the parties.
Court decision: Revoke the appellate court ruling and assign a new review in the appellate instance with a detailed examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 380/2389/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging investigation records of an accident that occurred with a police officer during service on 25.08.2020.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that for disputes related to public service, a one-month term for court appeal is set.
2. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit two years after the records were drawn up, which is a significant term violation.
3. The court did not recognize the valid reasons for missing the term, including outpatient treatment and care for family members, since the plaintiff simultaneously filed other lawsuits.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, keep the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 756/10559/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the verdict against a woman convicted of storing narcotic substances (methadone) under simplified court proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court established that pre-trial investigation bodies did not explain to the suspect the full consequences of simplified proceedings, particularly the limitation of the right to appeal. Second, the convicted person could not realize that as a result of simplified proceedings, she could be sentenced to actual imprisonment due to the addition of an unserved part of a previous verdict. Third, simplified proceedings are intended for misdemeanors, not for cases that may end in imprisonment.
Court decision: The Supreme Court revoked previous court rulings and assigned a new case review in the first instance court, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 464/2812/21 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Lawsuit about obliging to remove obstacles in using a land plot at Yaniv Cemetery in Lviv.
Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff claimed that installing a tombstone at the burial site of the respondent’s father violates her right to access her husband’s grave.
– The court established that the distance between graves is 1.30 m, which allows free movement and grave maintenance.
– Examinations confirmed the presence of passages around graves, therefore no obstruction of access was established.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court rulings unchanged, refusing the lawsuit.
The court ruling clearly shows that formal violations are not always grounds for satisfying a lawsuit if a person’s rights are not actually violated.
Case No. 2-2293/11 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging actions of private executors regarding opening enforcement proceedings for an expired enforcement sheet.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The term for presenting the enforcement sheet expired on December 26, 2012, and the court previously refused the bank to restore this term.
2. The bank’s appeal to private executors in 2021-2022 does not affect the course of the previously missed term.
3. Provisions of the new law on a three-year execution term cannot be applied since the case began before its entry into force.
Court decision: Leave unchanged the rulings of previous instances about canceling the resolution of private executor Chuchkov M.O. on opening enforcement proceedings.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 520/5107/22 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of the dispute – service conflict between PERSON_1 and the State Tax Service of Ukraine regarding the imposition of disciplinary penalties and dismissal from the position.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: firstly, procedural violations were established in the imposition of disciplinary penalties, in particular, non-compliance with the legally established procedure for conducting an official investigation; secondly, the court recognized that the decision to dismiss PERSON_1 requires additional legal assessment; thirdly, the panel of judges considered it necessary to return the case for a new review to study the circumstances in more detail.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the State Tax Service, canceled the previous court decisions in the part of satisfying PERSON_1’s claim, and sent the case for a new judicial review to the Kharkiv District Administrative Court.
Case No. 921/808/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of real estate purchase and sale agreements and cancellation of state property ownership registration.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Purchase and sale agreements were concluded before the emergence of a lawsuit on debt collection
– No evidence that the transactions are fictitious or aimed at harming the creditor
– Parties received mutual will expression and payment for the property
– Property ownership registration was legal and confirmed by documents
3. Court decision: Uphold previous court decisions and reject the claim for invalidation of the agreements.
The court decision demonstrates a consistent and balanced approach to analyzing the fraudulence of transactions.
Case No. 991/1726/25 dated 21/03/2025
The case concerns a corruption crime committed by a village head.
1. Subject of the dispute: Abuse of official position by the village head PERSON_6 to obtain an unlawful benefit for LLC “Ukrmezh-bud” by concluding contracts without competitive procedures with inflated work costs.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The accused fully admitted guilt
– Concluding the agreement is in the public interest
– The accused assists in solving the crime and exposing other participants
– The punishment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the person of the accused
– A probation period with restrictions is established
3. Court decision: Approve the plea agreement and impose a punishment of 5 years of imprisonment with probation, prohibition from holding positions, and a fine of 17,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 916/5153/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Invalidation of land plot purchase and sale agreements for 6 hectares on Yantarnyi Lane, 37 in Antonivka, Kherson, and return of the land plot to communal ownership.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence that the disputed land plot is located within the international wetland “Dnipro River Delta”.
2. At the time of concluding the purchase and sale agreements, the wetland passport did not exist, so there are no grounds to consider the land as having a special legal regime.
3. Copies from the cadastral map provided by the prosecutor do not contain identifying information about the land plot’s belonging to wetlands.
Court decision: Uphold the resolution of the appellate court and reject the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 912/9/24 dated 05/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Cancellation of state registration of unfinished construction and ownership rights of LLC “Optimastate” for a land plot in Kropyvnytskyi city.
2. Main arguments of the court:
