Case No. 520/10351/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the Decision of the State Tax Service of Ukraine by an Individual Entrepreneur.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the reasons for missing the appeal deadline and concluded that the lack of budget funding for paying court fees is not a valid reason. The court emphasized that state bodies must adhere to the principle of good governance and cannot abuse procedural rights by prolonging the court process through internal administrative procedures. Moreover, the court underscored that restoring the procedural deadline is not the court’s obligation but depends on the assessment of specific case circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate administrative court and rejected the cassation complaint of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv Oblast.
Case No. 520/36229/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of state inspectors of the State Geocadaster regarding the land plot inspection and preparation of an inspection report.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The inspection report is not a decision that directly violates a person’s rights, as it does not create legal consequences.
2. Such a report is merely an official document that records facts and judgments of officials.
3. Challenging the actions of inspectors and the inspection report cannot be a subject of administrative proceedings, as it does not violate the plaintiff’s rights.
Court Decision: Close the proceedings in the case, as the inspection report cannot be appealed in court.
Additionally: The court referred to previous Supreme Court decisions that confirm this legal position.
Case No. 991/1287/25 dated 19/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding assistance in receiving an unlawful benefit of a significant amount by an official.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court deviates from previous judicial practice in cases of corruption crimes. It thoroughly analyzes the circumstances of the case related to other persons but does so very carefully to avoid violating the presumption of innocence. The court emphasizes the importance of the plea bargain institute as a tool to combat corruption and a mechanism to accelerate judicial proceedings.
3. Court Decision: Approve the plea bargain, find PERSON_5 guilty of assisting in receiving an unlawful benefit, impose a sentence of 6 years of imprisonment with probation and confiscation of part of the property.
Case No. 275/150/22 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a legal assistance agreement from the heir of a deceased client.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the legal assistance agreement between the lawyer and the client was not actually concluded due to the lack of indisputable evidence of its signing and agreement on essential terms.
2. PERSON_3, on whose behalf the agreement was allegedly concluded, had mental disorders and could not understand the significance of his actions, which was confirmed by a posthumous forensic psychiatric examination.
3. The absence of the original agreement and contradictions in the provided copies did not allow the court to establish the actual terms of the transaction.
Court Decision: Reject the claim for debt recovery and seizure of inherited property.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice of recognizing contracts as invalid.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Valid, instead recognizing the contract as not concluded.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Production Enterprise “Green Wave” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Company “Ryze” for the amount of 837,689.00 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness between the creditor and the debtor (both companies are controlled by the same person).
2. Evidence provided by the creditor (copy of payment order) did not contain all mandatory details and did not confirm the reality of the economic transaction.
3. The creditor did not provide bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds and the existence of debt.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged, and to refuse recognition of creditor claims.
Case No. 359/13177/21 dated 12/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order of suspension of an employee from work without salary preservation due to refusal of COVID-19 vaccination.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
: The Supreme Court indicated that suspension from work must be proportional and involve an individual risk assessment. In this case:
– The employee has only 4 direct and 2 indirect contacts at work
– Workplaces are separated by glass
– There is no significant need for personal contact with people
The court concluded that suspension without a detailed assessment of specific circumstances is a disproportionate measure.
3. Court Decision: To declare the suspension order illegal. The case on salary recovery has been sent for a new review.
Key Thesis: Each case of employee suspension requires an individual assessment of circumstances and proportionality of the measure.
Case No. 331/3046/23 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Return of prepayment under supply contracts for garlic and its sowing between an individual and LLC “Euroshock”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– PERSON_1 fully paid for the contracts (3,307,567 UAH)
– Goods and transportation invoices contain the plaintiff’s signature confirming receipt of goods (21,600 kg of garlic)
– The plaintiff made full payment after goods delivery, which indicates actual acceptance of performance
– No evidence of improper quality or non-receipt of goods
– Claims were made only 3 years after contract execution
3. Court Decision: To refuse satisfaction of PERSON_1’s original claim for prepayment return and to satisfy the counterclaim of LLC “Euroshock” on confirming proper contract performance.
Case No. 369/1708/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a transaction and recovery of a land plot that, according to the plaintiff, was alienated based on a non-existent court decision.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff claims he did not participate in the court case based on which his land plot was transferred to another person, and the copy of the settlement agreement does not contain his signatures.
2. The Head of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court officially confirmed the absence of case No. 334/57062/15-ц in the court’s automated document management system.
3. The court concluded that the land plot was alienated from the plaintiff’s possession based on a non-existent court decision, therefore the vindicatory claim is an effective method of protecting property rights.
Court Decision: To cancelHere is the translation of the text:
to quash the appellate court’s ruling and remand the case for a new hearing to comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the dispute.
Case No. 140/32696/23 dated 24/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging tax authority decisions on refusal to register tax invoices in the Unified Tax Invoice Register.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The taxpayer (PE “UKR-PETROL”) did not exercise the right to provide additional explanations and documents after receiving notifications from the tax authority.
– Changes to Procedure No. 520 from March 2023 established a clear mechanism for interaction between the taxpayer and the controlling body when suspending tax invoice registration.
– Failure to submit additional documents within the specified time is grounds for refusing tax invoice registration.
3. Court decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel previous instances’ decisions regarding most tax invoices and deny the claim. Maintain the decision regarding 9 tax invoices where the tax authority did not send additional notifications.
Peculiarity: The court essentially changed the previous practice of considering tax invoice registration cases, clearly defining the algorithm of actions for the taxpayer and the controlling body.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
1. Calculated taking into account the financial capabilities of the enterprise, and the decision on bonuses falls within the competence of the director.
2. The plaintiff did not challenge the amounts and fact of bonuses during the work, which indicates his actual consent to the terms of bonus accrual.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of the Limited Liability Company Agricultural Enterprise “Green Wave” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raize Company” in the bankruptcy case for the amount of 7,150,000.00 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence provided by the creditor and concluded that they do not confirm the reality of the economic transaction. Firstly, the payment order did not contain all mandatory details. Secondly, LLC “Green Wave” and the bank through which transfers were made were associated with the same ultimate beneficiary. Thirdly, the creditor did not provide original documents and bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and denied the cassation complaint of LLC “Green Wave”, i.e., did not recognize the creditor claims.
Case No. 910/13612/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty from “Layan Winner” company for non-return of rented state real estate after the lease agreement expiration.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The lease agreement expired on 10.10.2019, but the defendant actually continued to use the premises.
2. The acceptance-transfer act dated 17.01.2020 cannot be considered a real return of property, as other court cases established the fact of non-return of premises.
3. The defendant abused procedural rights, attempting to conceal the fact of unlawful use of state property.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint of the prosecutor’s office, cancel the appellate court resolution and keep the first instance court decision on penalty recovery from LLC “Layan Winner” in force.
Case No. 537/4740/20 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of unpaid funds and average earnings for the delay in settlement from the trade union organization upon dismissal.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The employer unlawfully withheld taxes from the previously court-recovered average earnings for forced absence
– Upon dismissal, the employee was not paid all due amounts
– The appellate court incorrectly determined the amount of average earnings for the settlement delay, without providing proper calculations
3. Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution regarding the recovery of average earnings for the settlement delay and refer the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Note: The court actually deviated from previous practice regarding tax accrual on court recoveries.
Case No. 200/20064/15-ц dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for property and moral damage caused by a fire in the apartment.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The fire occurred in an apartment whose owner (PERSON_3) was not living at the time of the fire, as his former wife prevented him from entering the apartment.
2. The fire report indicates that the probable cause of the fire is the careless handling of fire by the former wife.Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
of the apartment owner.
3. The apartment owner took measures to evict the former wife, therefore cannot be held responsible for the fire.
Court Decision: Leave unchanged the resolution of the appellate court on refusal to satisfy the claim for damages.
Case No. 203/1437/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of actions by the Main Directorate of the State Geocadaster in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast as unlawful regarding cancellation of state registration of land plots for ATO participants.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The land plots claimed by the plaintiffs are part of a land plot of 4.0 hectares, which has been in permanent use by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Clinical Hospital since 1992.
2. By the appellate court resolution dated April 23, 2019, the effect of the state act for the right to use this land plot was actually restored.
3. The plaintiffs did not provide proper evidence of violation of their rights to obtain land plots, as the disputed territory remains in the hospital’s use.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous court instances to refuse the claim.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Private Agricultural Enterprise named after T.H. Shevchenko to PJSC “Company “Rise” for the amount of 4,725,273.40 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the evidence provided by the creditor (copies of payment orders) does not contain mandatory details and does not confirm the reality of economic transactions.
2. It was revealed that the Private Agricultural Enterprise named after T.H. Shevchenko and the bank through which transfers were made are connected by a common ultimate beneficial owner, which raised additional doubts about the reliability of documents.
3. The creditor did not provide bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds and economic transactions.
Court Decision: Refuse to recognize creditor claims of the Private Agricultural Enterprise named after T.H. Shevchenko for the amount of 4,725,273.40 UAH, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 914/2417/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor demanded recognition of the village council’s decision on transferring a land plot to the ownership of a garage cooperative as invalid, cancellation of state registration of ownership and the lease agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecutor’s demands to declare decisions invalid are not an effective method of protecting state property rights.
2. The proper method of protection is a vindicatory claim for recovery of the land plot, which the prosecutor did not file.
3. Declaring contracts invalid through Articles 215-216 of the Civil Code is also not a correct mechanism for protecting property rights.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution, leave the local court’s decision on claim refusal in force, but on different grounds.
Case No. 521/6095/17 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of accrued but unpaid wages, average earnings for the period of forced absence, and compensation for loss of part of the income of an employee of SE “Energomontazhnyi Poizd No. 754”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court recognized that LLC “York Industry” is the legal successor of SE “Energomontazhnyi Poizd No. 754” based on the purchase and sale agreement dated May 11, 2023.
2. The appellate court mistakenly closed the appellate proceedings, not taking into account that LLC “York Industry” canTranslation:
1. It is to be involved as a legal successor.
3. Refusal of the right to appeal violates the principle of the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.
Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court resolution and refer the case to the appellate instance to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 759/20289/18 dated 21/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of actions as unlawful and dissemination of inaccurate information about a person’s mental state.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. PERSON_3 independently submitted a document to the executive service about PERSON_1 being on psychiatric registration, which did not correspond to reality.
2. Kyiv Psychoneurological Dispensary officially confirmed that the information about PERSON_1 being on registration is false.
3. The court established that PERSON_2 did not directly instruct PERSON_3 to spread inaccurate information, therefore rejected the claims against her.
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – recognition of PERSON_3’s actions as unlawful and recovery of 1000 UAH moral damages in favor of PERSON_1, claims against PERSON_2 were rejected.
Case No. 924/622/23 (924/483/24) dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The case concerns recovery of the difference between 90% of the mortgage property value and the loan agreement debt amount, as well as eviction of the debtor from the apartment.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– A loan agreement for 19,040 USD was concluded between the parties, secured by an apartment mortgage
– PERSON_1 acquired property rights to the apartment due to non-repayment of debt
– The apartment value exceeds the debt amount by more than 90%
– The court recognized as lawful recovery from PERSON_1 of the difference between the apartment value and debt in the amount of 509,542.23 UAH
– The court also satisfied the claim for eviction of PERSON_2 from the apartment
3. Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the original claim by PERSON_2 and the counterclaim by PERSON_1 for eviction, with referral of the case for new consideration regarding recovery of damages and lost profits.
Case No. 910/23532/13 dated 18/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine recognizing the actions of SE “Lactalys-Ukraine” regarding labeling of the product “Tender Cottage Cheese” as unfair competition.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The product packaging provides complete information about its composition and name – “Thermized Cream Cheese”
– Expert examination confirmed that the product is a type of fermented cottage cheese
– The Antimonopoly Committee did not prove that the labeling misleads consumers
– Results of anonymous consumer survey cannot unconditionally testify to misleading
3. Court Decision: Leave the appellate court resolution unchanged, modifying the reasoning part.
Note: The court essentially deviated from previous practice regarding interpretation of the concept of “misleading” in unfair competition cases.
Case No. 910/2361/21 dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Establishing a land easement for passage and laying of electrical network on a land plot.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff has own non-residential building on a land plot leased by the defendant.
2. Expertise confirmed that the only technically possible way to ensure access to the building and electricity supply is establishing a land easement.
3. The defendant unreasonably hindered the plaintiff’s obtaining access to own real estate, not proviConsent to Land Plot Division or Establishment of Easement.
Court Decision: Fully satisfy the claim for establishing a land easement of 0.0445 hectares for passage and laying of electrical network.
Case No. 545/478/24 dated 21/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Declaring as unlawful and terminating state registration of ownership of a land plot with an area of 0.04 hectares.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. There is actually a dispute between the parties regarding the procedure for using land plots, which should be resolved in a separate court proceeding.
2. The plaintiff does not challenge the respondent’s ownership right to the land plot, but only disagrees with its configuration.
3. Cancellation of state registration of ownership will not resolve existing land disputes between co-owners.
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution denying PERSON_1’s claim to terminate state registration of ownership of the land plot.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Private Agricultural Enterprise “Oberih” to Private Joint-Stock Company “Raiz” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 3,709,953.88 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PSP “Oberih” and the bank through which transfers were made are related parties with the ultimate beneficial owner PERSON_1.
2. Payment orders provided by the creditor did not contain all mandatory details and could not unequivocally confirm the reality of the economic transaction.
3. Bank account statements that could have confirmed the movement of funds were not submitted to the court, and archival data indicate the absence of fund movement on the account.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., deny PSP “Oberih” in recognizing creditor claims.
Case No. 278/4465/22 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovering a forestry land plot from a private individual in favor of the state.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The land plot with an area of 1.3575 hectares actually belongs to forest fund lands, confirmed by forest management materials and expert opinion.
2. Transfer of the land plot to private ownership occurred with violation of legislation – without coordination with forestry authorities and with change of intended purpose.
3. IMPORTANT: The court verified the good faith of the acquirer and concluded that the person could and should have known about the status of the land plot, as it is located in a forest area.
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on recovering the land plot in favor of the state.
Case No. 200/4085/24 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding pension indexation and application of coefficients for increasing the average wage indicator when recalculating pension.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Legislation provides for annual pension indexation by increasing the average wage indicator directly considered when assigning the pension.
2. Procedure No. 124 partially contradicts the Pension Insurance Law, as it establishes a base indicator as of 2017 instead of using the actual indicator when assigning the pension.
3. The state is obligated to maintain the purchasing power of pensions through the indexation mechanism.
Court DecisionPartially satisfy the claim by obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from December 19, 2023, using coefficients 1.197 and 1.0796.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of the Limited Liability Company “Porttransbud” in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Raize Company” for the amount of 1,267,033.00 UAH.
Main arguments of the court: The court thoroughly analyzed the provided evidence and concluded that the creditor did not provide indisputable proof of actual money transfer. Firstly, the payment order did not contain all mandatory requisites. Secondly, LLC “Porttransbud” and the bank through which the operations were conducted were associated with the same ultimate beneficiary, which raised additional doubts about the reality of the transaction. Thirdly, the creditor did not provide bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and denied LLC “Porttransbud” in recognizing creditor claims for the amount of 1,267,033.00 UAH.
Case No. 523/9594/16-c dated 21/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of an apartment as joint shared property and determination of shares between PERSON_1, PERSON_2, and PERSON_3.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the presumption of joint property ownership by spouses has not been refuted.
2. It was not proven that all funds from the sale of the previous apartment were spent on purchasing the new apartment.
3. During the alienation of the child’s property, their rights were not violated, as they were gifted a part of another apartment.
Court decision: Deny the plaintiffs’ claims for recognition of the apartment as joint shared property and redistribution of shares.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of LLC “Fialka” to PJSC “Raize Company” for the amount of 5,239,272.91 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of party interconnectedness (LLC “Fialka” and PJSC “Commercial Bank “Financial Initiative” are controlled by the same person).
2. Copies of payment orders provided by the creditor were recognized as improper evidence due to the absence of mandatory requisites.
3. The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of the actual implementation of the economic transaction and transfer of funds, particularly bank statements.
Court decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances denying the recognition of creditor claims of LLC “Fialka” for the amount of 5,239,272.91 UAH.
Case No. 918/634/24 dated 19/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of legal expenses for legal assistance from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant in a case of leaving the claim without consideration.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court indicated that to recover legal expenses, the defendant must prove the groundlessness of the plaintiff’s actions. The courts of previous instances did not establish specific groundless actions of the plaintiff, but merely stated the fact of leaving the claim without consideration. The courts need to thoroughly clarify the specific groundless actions of the plaintiff and whether they had malicious intent.
3. Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new hearing to thoroughly establish the circumstances of the plaintiff’s groundless actions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness of the parties (LLC “Zernoprom Agro” and PJSC “Raiz Company” are controlled by the same person).
2. The creditor provided only copies of documents without originals, which raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence.
3. The absence of bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds cast doubt on the reality of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: Deny LLC “Zernoprom Agro” in recognizing creditor claims for the amount of UAH 947,676.57, leaving the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 120/5455/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages from individual entrepreneurs for unauthorized occupation of a municipal land plot with an area of 0.27 hectares in Kharkiv.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The defendants (PERSON_1 and PERSON_2) are registered entrepreneurs who use the land plot for tourism infrastructure
– The dispute is related to entrepreneurial activity and therefore should be considered in economic, not civil proceedings
– The status of an individual entrepreneur does not cancel their rights as a business entity
Court Decision: Leave the previous court decisions unchanged about closing the civil case proceedings and transferring the dispute to the economic court.
Important: The court clearly argued that entrepreneurial activity affects the jurisdiction of the dispute.
Case No. 357/14621/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cancellation of state registration of ownership of a non-residential building located on a municipal land plot.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The case should be considered in the order of economic legal proceedings, as PERSON_1 is an individual entrepreneur using the disputed non-residential building for entrepreneurial activities.
2. There are economic and legal relations between the Bila Tserkva City Council and PERSON_1 regarding the use of the land plot based on easement agreements.
3. The land plot has a designated purpose “for construction and maintenance of trade buildings”, and the disputed object is a non-residential building used for entrepreneurial activities.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and close the proceedings in the case, as it is subject to consideration in the economic court.
