Case No. 235/1783/23 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Illegal Acquisition and Possession of Psychotropic Substances (4-MMC and Amphetamine) for Personal Use.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and established that PERSON_6 indeed illegally acquired and possessed psychotropic substances. Second, when sentencing, the court considered several mitigating circumstances: the convicted person has no prior criminal record, has a minor child, admitted guilt and sincerely repented. Third, the court believed that the punishment in the form of suspended imprisonment was fair and sufficient for the person’s correction.
Court Decision: To leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 922/2435/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recovery from Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Smart Energy Service” of a monetary sum of 3,555,127.46 UAH.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous judicial instances correctly established all factual circumstances. The reasoning of lower courts was consistent and based on proper and admissible evidence. The Supreme Court found no grounds for canceling or changing previous court decisions, as they comply with substantive and procedural law.
The court left the cassation appeal of Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” without satisfaction, confirming the previous judicial instances’ decision on recovering the claimed amount.
Case No. 372/3539/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Actions of a Private Executor Regarding Opening Enforcement Proceedings on a Credit Agreement.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The writ of execution became legally valid and was not canceled at the time of presentation for execution.
2. The writ of execution clearly specifies the debtor’s property located in the Obukhiv District of Kyiv Region.
3. The fact of property ownership change is not a basis for non-acceptance of the writ of execution, as this is not provided for in enforcement proceedings legislation.
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the cassation appeal – the motivational part of the appellate court’s resolution was amended and court fees were canceled.
The court noted that the appellate court did not consider new circumstances that arose after the first instance court’s decision.
Case No. 706/208/15-c dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation and Cancellation of State Act for Land Ownership.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff repeatedly did not appear in court sessions, despite proper notification of the date, time, and place of case consideration.
2. Court summons were sent to the plaintiff’s official address but returned with a mark of addressee’s absence.
3. The validity period of the plaintiff’s representatives’ power of attorney had expired, and no new power of attorney was provided.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and previous court decisions – unchanged, as they were adopted in compliance with…Translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 914/3184/23 dated 19/03/2025
The case concerns a dispute about removing obstacles in disposing of a land plot by demolishing unauthorized non-residential premises.
Key arguments of the court:
1. The land plot where the non-residential premises are located is in the communal ownership of the Lviv City Council.
2. The defendant purchased the premises being aware that the land plot does not belong to the seller.
3. The increase of the premises area from 47.2 to 70.2 sq.m occurred without appropriate permits.
4. Documents for construction and commissioning are absent, which indicates unauthorized construction.
The court decided to satisfy the Lviv City Council’s claim to demolish the non-residential premises and terminate the defendant’s ownership right to these premises.
Case No. 924/580/13 (924/384/23) dated 11/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of auction results for the sale of real estate of Private Enterprise “Largo” and related transactions.
Key arguments of the court: The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court prematurely recognized the plaintiff’s chosen method of protection as ineffective without investigating all necessary case circumstances. In particular, the court did not verify the presence of two key conditions for assessing the appropriateness of the protection method: the nature of legal relations between the parties and the possibility of state registration of changes in the Property Rights Register. Moreover, the appellate court changed the motivation of the first instance court’s decision without reviewing it on the merits, which violates the principle of legal certainty.
Court decision: Revoke the appellate commercial court’s resolution and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance for a comprehensive investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 758/1322/25 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of the defense counsel’s motion to transfer a criminal case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Key arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the defense counsel’s motion and concluded that there are insufficient grounds to satisfy this motion. The court was guided by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, particularly Articles 32, 34. The panel of judges considered that there were no procedural obstacles to hearing the case in the current court.
Court decision: Leave the defense counsel’s motion unsatisfied.
Case No. 202/1843/15-к dated 25/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of cassation appeals against the verdict of the Industrialnyi District Court of Dnipropetrovsk and the resolution of the Dnipro Appellate Court in a criminal case.
Key arguments of the court: Under martial law conditions introduced due to Russian aggression, the court deemed it necessary to ensure the participation of convicts and their defense counsels in the court session through video conference. This decision is based on Article 85-3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows conducting procedural actions remotely if physical attendance of process participants is impossible. The court also considered the motions of defense counsels and the convicts themselves to ensure their participation in the cassation review.
Court decision: The court satisfied…Here is the translation:
He granted the motion and scheduled the cassation review for April 03, 2025 at 12:30 via video conference from the penitentiary institution.
Case No. 753/5299/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Persons as Having Lost the Right to Use a Residential Premises Transferred as Mortgage under a Credit Agreement.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. Establishing the circumstances of mortgage property acquisition – whether or not using credit funds – is of key importance.
2. In a previous case, it was already established that the disputed apartment was purchased before the credit agreement was concluded and not with credit funds.
3. Since the apartment was not purchased with credit funds, eviction is possible only with provision of another residential premises.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, modifying the reasoning part of the appellate court’s resolution, but leaving unchanged the decision to refuse recognition of persons as having lost the right to use housing.
Case No. 200/5046/15-k dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_8, a judge accused of deliberately rendering unjust rulings on preventive measures during the Dignity Revolution events in 2014.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. The prosecution did not prove the judge’s intent to make illegal decisions.
2. No specific signs of the judge’s “personal interest” or careerist motives were established.
3. Judicial decisions were made in accordance with procedural norms, within established timeframes, and within the investigative judge’s powers.
Court Decision: Acquit PERSON_8 due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 371 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 607/15974/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Appealing the verdict in a criminal case under Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (official forgery) regarding PERSON_7.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the defense lawyer and the convicted person but found no grounds for cancellation or modification of previous court decisions. The panel of judges concluded that the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling are legal and substantiated. Evidence provided by the defense does not refute the previous instances’ conclusions regarding PERSON_7’s guilt.
The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Ternopil City District Court and the ruling of the Ternopil Appellate Court unchanged, and the cassation complaints were not satisfied.
Case No. 925/1473/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy Oblast in the bankruptcy case of Private Enterprise “Lider-Trans”.
Key Arguments of the Court:
1. Land payment can be levied either as land tax or as rent, but not simultaneously.
2. The Main Directorate of the State Tax Service is not a party to the land lease agreement and has no authority to collect rent for the land plot.
3. The tax authority’s monetary claims actually duplicate the city council’s claims regarding rent payment for the same period.
Court Decision: Deny the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy Oblast recognition of monetary claims amounting to 341,472.41 UAH in the bankruptcy case.Bankruptcy.
Case No. 907/665/18 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Creditor Claims of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in the Zakarpattia Region in the Bankruptcy Case of PJSC “Uzhhorod Turbogaz”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Monetary claims of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service arose in 2023 based on tax declarations for land use submitted by the debtor, and therefore are current.
2. The final meeting in the bankruptcy case has not yet been completed, so it is premature to consider creditor claims.
3. Current legislation stipulates that current creditor claims can only be submitted after the official publication of the notice of debtor’s bankruptcy.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 607/15974/21 dated 19/03/2025
The case concerns official document forgery by an official of the State Architectural and Construction Inspection.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. PERSON_7, being the chief construction supervision inspector, on March 19, 2019, compiled an official certificate of construction site inspection that did not correspond to reality.
2. The court established that no works were actually performed at the site, except for door frame dismantling, however, the inspector confirmed full completion of all prescribed works.
3. Evidence of guilt is confirmed by witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and site inspection protocols.
The court decided to leave previous court decisions unchanged and recognize PERSON_7 guilty of compiling a knowingly false official document.
Case No. 760/17390/22 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the dismissal of a state enterprise director based on paragraph 8 of part one of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine dismissed the director, referring to gross violation of legislation, including employing his wife who was not actually working, and refusal to execute orders during martial law.
2. The court thoroughly analyzed the provided evidence and concluded that the respondent did not provide indisputable proof of the director committing a gross violation that caused significant negative consequences for the enterprise.
3. The court established that the dismissal occurred without clearly defining specific contract terms that were violated and without proper evidence of such violations.
Court Decision: To leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances, which recognized the dismissal as unlawful, and modified the reason for dismissal to termination upon contract expiration.
Case No. 638/12759/23 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict in a criminal case on an offense under Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (offering or providing an unlawful benefit).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require mitigation. The court took into account the case circumstances, the person of the accused, and deemed it necessary to replace imprisonment with a fine. The panel of judges believed that…The previously imposed punishment is excessively severe and does not correspond to the principles of fairness and individualization of criminal liability.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, modified the previous court decisions, mitigating the punishment to a fine of 51,000 UAH and released the person from custody.
Case No. 372/1849/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Criminal Proceedings against PERSON_5 for embezzlement (Parts 1, 3, and 4 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The Court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions (district and appellate courts) contain significant procedural violations. In particular, the court established that during the previous case review, the rights of the convicted person might have been violated or not all case circumstances were properly investigated. The Supreme Court considers it necessary to return the case for a new review to more thoroughly and comprehensively examine all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court revoked the previous court decisions and assigned a new review of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/11352/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of monetary funds amounting to 3,095,400.00 UAH between LLC “Gasoiltechnopipe” and LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions of the appellate and local commercial courts require partial review. The court recognized that the cassation appeal of the respondent is subject to partial satisfaction, while the basic decisions of the lower courts remain unchanged. The court paid special attention to the additional decision of the local commercial court, which was revoked with referral for a new review.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, leaving the basic court decisions unchanged and referring part of the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 908/3893/21 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Public Joint Stock Company “Zaporizhzhyaoblenergo” filed a cassation appeal regarding the obligation to perform certain actions in relation to Public Joint Stock Company “Zaporizhzhya Aluminum Production Plant”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the case materials and previous court decisions of lower instances. The court concluded that the decisions of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Oblast and the resolution of the Central Appellate Commercial Court are lawful and substantiated. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal, as the previous court instances correctly assessed all case circumstances and adhered to procedural law norms.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 5011-44/2141-2012 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Imposing subsidiary liability on former directors and founders of LLC “Industrial Construction Technologies” for driving the enterprise to bankruptcy.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established1. It was established that the company’s officials systematically withdrew the enterprise’s assets, in particular through transferring funds to the controlled LLC “Termo-Shyld”, did not fulfill obligations to counterparties, and did not submit financial reports.
2. Financial analysis showed that the enterprise had signs of insolvency since 2010, but management did not take measures to prevent bankruptcy, continuing to withdraw assets.
3. The court concluded that the actions of managers PERSON_3, PERSON_4, PERSON_1, and PERSON_2 were intentional and led to bringing the company to bankruptcy, as a result of which creditors cannot receive their funds.
Court decision: To impose subsidiary liability on PERSON_3, PERSON_4, PERSON_1, and PERSON_2 in the amount of 18,240,380.99 UAH for the obligations of LLC “Industrial Construction Technologies”.
Case No. 175/2995/20 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for land plot rental and termination of lease agreements between land owners and LLC “Kam’yanske Agro”.
Main court arguments: The appellate court partially satisfied the claim, reducing the debt amount, but did not consider the plaintiffs’ motion for a forensic handwriting examination regarding the authenticity of signatures in rental payment documents. The Supreme Court indicated that improper handling of the motion is a violation of procedural norms, which makes it impossible to establish all circumstances of the case.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling regarding the refusal to satisfy the claims and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 990/85/24 dated 20/03/2025
The case concerns an administrative dispute between an individual (PERSON_1) and the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding challenging a certain decision.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court is lawful. The main arguments were procedural aspects and the lack of grounds for satisfying the claims. The judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the previous decision should remain unchanged.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appeal without satisfaction and confirmed the previous instance’s decision.
Case No. 127/9509/20 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding official negligence (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) concerning PERSON_5.
Main court arguments: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in previous court decisions that make it impossible to adopt a legal and substantiated verdict. The court concluded that the appellate court improperly investigated the case circumstances and did not provide a comprehensive legal assessment of all evidence. The panel of judges considers it necessary to return the case for a new appellate review to further examine all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Court decision: To cancel the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 165/1287/22 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation complaint of the prosecutor
