Case No. 200/5046/15-k dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal in a criminal case concerning PERSON_8, accused of official forgery.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the prosecutor’s arguments. The court concluded that the appellate court previously correctly assessed the circumstances of the case and found no grounds for changing previous court decisions. The panel of judges believes that there are no procedural or substantive grounds for satisfying the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal unchanged and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 400/4957/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding pension indexation for PERSON_1 from 2021 to 2024.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Legislation provides for annual pension indexation by increasing the average wage indicator from which insurance contributions were paid.
2. Procedure No. 124 limits indexation to the base indicator as of 01.10.2017, which contradicts the purpose of indexation – maintaining pensioners’ purchasing power.
3. The Cabinet of Ministers does not have the right to establish a fixed base calculation value for indexation, as this nullifies the very essence of indexation.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to carry out pension indexation for PERSON_1 from 24.11.2023 with coefficients 1.11, 1.14, 1.197 and from 01.03.2024 – 1.0796.
Case No. 160/1776/24 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging urban planning conditions and restrictions for residential construction near an archaeological monument – Novooleksandrivskyi Burial Mound, without considering its protection zone.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The General Plan is not the sole document for determining cultural heritage sites
– Absence of markings in the plan does not mean the monument does not exist
– Local authorities are obliged to consider the presence of monuments when issuing urban planning documentation
– Even during martial law, it is possible to conduct inspections in case of threats to citizens’ rights
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and send the case for a new review for more detailed examination of circumstances.
Important: The court emphasized the priority of preserving cultural heritage over developers’ commercial interests.
Case No. 991/5241/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: The State of Ukraine, represented by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, filed a claim to recognize the assets of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 as unjustified and recover them in state revenue.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court reviewed the appellate appeal of PERSON_1 against the previous decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court. The panel of judges deemed it necessary to restore the term for appellate appeal for PERSON_1, however, in essence, left the previous decision unchanged. The court concluded that the appellant’s arguments are insufficient to change or cancel the previous court decision.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated December 112024 year to remain unchanged.
Case No. 160/21728/24 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding pension indexation and recalculation of its amount taking into account coefficients of average wage increase.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The procedure for pension indexation defined by a by-law (Procedure No. 124) does not comply with the requirements of the Pension Insurance Law.
2. During indexation, the average wage indicator that was directly used for calculating the specific pension should be applied, not a fixed indicator as of 01.10.2017.
3. The court established that the pension authority improperly replaced indexation with a monthly supplement of 100 hryvnias.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from 12.02.2024 and 01.03.2024 using coefficients 1.197 and 1.0796 respectively.
Case No. 991/1304/24 dated 25/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute:
A People’s Deputy of Ukraine, PERSON_9, was accused of inciting the provision of an unlawful benefit and attempted fraud when trying to obtain 85,000 US dollars for assistance in cultivating state enterprise lands.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– PERSON_9, using the status of the Temporary Investigative Commission chair, created an impression of possible influence on land issues of NAAS
– The accused, together with accomplices, tried to convince PERSON_14 of the need to transfer an unlawful benefit
– Accomplices intended not to transfer funds to officials, but to appropriate them
– Actions were pre-planned and had a mercenary motive
3. Court Decision:
Recognize PERSON_9 guilty of:
– attempted fraud
– inciting the provision of an unlawful benefit
Punishment imposed:
– 7 years of imprisonment
– property confiscation
– deprivation of the right to hold public positions for 3 years
Case No. 160/16082/24 dated 25/03/2025
The case concerns appealing the Pension Fund’s refusal to conduct pension indexation.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The procedure for pension indexation approved by CMU Resolution No. 124 does not comply with the Law “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, as it differently defines the indicator subject to indexation.
2. When recalculating pensions, the average wage indicator directly considered when assigning the pension should be applied.
3. The plaintiff appealed with an expired deadline, therefore her claims can be satisfied only partially – from December 20, 2023.
The court decided to partially satisfy the claim and oblige the Pension Fund to conduct pension indexation from December 20, 2023, with coefficients 1.14, 1.197, and 1.0796.
Case No. 340/3096/23 dated 25/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring the decision of the Zavallya Village Council on approving technical documentation and state registration of a land plot of the nature reserve area “Salkivske” with an area of 64.3554 hectares instead of the previously defined area of 66.3 hectares as unlawful.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Decision of the Kirovohrad Regional Council from 1993Translation:
1. Not a land management documentation for establishing the precise area of the land plot
– At the moment of decision-making, the boundaries of the reserved land plot were not officially established
– The conducted inventory allowed clarifying the actual area of the land plot
– Cancellation of the decision may create legal uncertainty regarding the status of nature reserve fund lands
3. Court Decision: Uphold the local court’s decision to reject the prosecutor’s claim and recognize the Zavallya Settlement Council’s decision on approving technical documentation as lawful.
Case No. 240/582/24 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to calculate and pay a pension of 8 minimum old-age pensions to a person with 2nd group disability due to the Chornobyl disaster.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in decisions dated 07.04.2021 and 03.04.2024 recognized that the state cannot reduce social guarantees for Chornobyl disaster victims.
2. Law No. 1584-IX, which established new pension amounts, actually violates citizens’ constitutional rights by providing lower payments than the previous law version.
3. The state must ensure enhanced social protection and health damage compensation for Chornobyl disaster victims.
Court Decision: Satisfy the claim, obligate the Pension Fund to calculate and pay a pension of 8 minimum old-age pensions to a person with 2nd group disability from 13.09.2023.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]Here is the translation of the legal text:
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging amendments to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine regarding the procedure for receiving monetary compensation for housing by internally displaced persons – participants in combat operations.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff has the right to challenge a regulatory legal act, as the changes directly affect his ability to receive housing compensation.
2. Previous instance courts did not properly verify compliance with the procedure for adopting changes and did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the narrowing of his rights.
3. New editorial changes actually deprive persons who became internally displaced after 24.02.2022 of the right to compensation.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the case circumstances.
[Case No. 344/8249/24 dated 25/03/2025]
Subject of Dispute: Dismissal of a motor vehicle driver PERSON_1 from LLC “Stryhanetskyi Quarry” due to health condition.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Based on the results of an extraordinary medical examination, it was established that PERSON_1 is unfit to work as a motor vehicle driver due to health condition.
2. The employer followed all procedures prescribed by law when dismissing: sent the employee for a medical examination, obtained a medical commission conclusion, issued a dismissal order.
3. There were no vacant positions at the enterprise where the employee could be transferred.
Court Decision: Reject the claim of PERSON_1 for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
[Case No. 917/2194/23 dated 06/03/2025]
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages from a contractor due to late registration of tax invoices for the amount of 1,814,300.75 UAH.
2. Main Arguments of the Court: The court took into account the specifics of tax legislation during martial law, in particular that in February-May 2022, the buyer had the right to independently include VAT amounts in the tax credit based on primary documents without registering invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between non-registration of invoices and the plaintiff’s damages, which makes compensation impossible.
3. Court Decision: The resolution of the appellate court on refusal to recover damages from the defendant was left unchanged.
[Case No. 380/3740/24 dated 25/03/2025]
Subject of Dispute: A person’s right to recalculate old-age pension using the average wage indicator for three calendar years preceding the year of applying for pension assignment.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, when a person transitions from a service pension to an old-age pension under different laws, this is considered an initial pension assignment, not a transfer. Second, in such a case, the person has the right to recalculate the pension using the current average wage indicator for the last three calendar years. Third, the court referred to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which confirm such a legal position.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court resolution, and upheld the decision of the first instance court, which satisfied the plaintiff’s requirements for recalculation.Pensions.
Case No. 440/10223/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the Pension Fund’s refusal to pay full one-time monetary assistance for the Independence Day of Ukraine.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the plaintiff received partial monetary assistance in 2023 and should have immediately understood the possible violation of his rights. Second, references to martial law and military service are not an indisputable basis for extending the procedural term, as the plaintiff did not provide specific evidence of obstacles to appealing to the court. Third, the court believes that the moment of receiving partial assistance is the beginning of the term for appeal.
Court Decision: Cassation complaint to be left without satisfaction, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 2а-2193/09/1570 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order refusing registration of amendments to the Statute of a public organization and obliging to register a new version of the Statute.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found that the appellate court improperly suspended the proceedings due to the absence of grounds for such suspension provided by procedural legislation. The court emphasized the importance of observing reasonable terms of judicial review, the right to judicial protection, and effective restoration of violated rights. Moreover, the Supreme Court drew attention that sending case materials to the court of first instance to restore lost proceedings is not a basis for suspending appellate proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the Fifth Administrative Appellate Court and sent the case materials to the appellate court for continued consideration.
Case No. 160/4460/24 dated 25/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of the State Geological Service of Ukraine and the State Commission of Ukraine on Mineral Reserves regarding the issuance of a special permit for subsoil use to the private enterprise “KB Metrateks”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Prosecutor’s Office missed the statutory three-month term for appealing to the court, as it had information about possible violations since June 2021.
2. The fact of receiving criminal proceedings materials in February 2024 is not a valid reason for renewing the procedural term.
3. The court emphasized that appeal terms are designed to ensure the stability of public legal relations and legal certainty.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 520/29483/23 dated 26/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of LLC “Kharkiv Plant of Lifting and Transport Equipment” as unlawful regarding improper maintenance of a civil protection shelter.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The prosecutor did not prove the legal grounds for appealing to the court, as the Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service in Kharkiv Oblast does not have a legally defined right to independently file such a claim.
– Legislation does not provide powers for the State Emergency Service to appeal to the court about bringing protective structures to readiness.
– The prosecutor cannot replace the body
