Case No. 909/578/17 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from the Subsidiary Enterprise “Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Road Management” in favor of Public Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Innovation Company”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court established that PJSC “Ukrinbank” and PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company” are the same legal entity with an unchanged identification code.
2. Change of bank name is not a reorganization and does not affect its previous obligations.
3. Court decisions on cancellation of NBU decisions on bank liquidation are valid, therefore previous procedures are recognized as illegal.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 924/448/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of land lease agreements for plots of 10.7284 hectares and 99.4781 hectares, concluded between Horodok City Council and LLC “Epicenter K”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff (PE “Universam”) did not provide any evidence that its immovable property is located on the disputed land plots.
2. The land lease agreement dated 10.08.2005, concluded by the plaintiff, was terminated by a court decision in case No. 924/976/22.
3. Horodok City Council had full legal grounds to dispose of land plots after termination of PE “Universam’s” lease right.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal of PE “Universam”, leave court decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 220/403/22 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – criminal proceedings regarding a person who committed a criminal offense under Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (presumably collaborative activities).
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions (local court verdict and appellate court ruling) are legal and substantiated. The court took into account all provided evidence and arguments of the defense. No grounds for cancellation or modification of previous court decisions were established.
The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and rejected cassation appeals of the convicted person and her defender.
Case No. 908/3893/21 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Electricity supplier demanded to compel the aluminum plant to provide access for its representatives to terminate electricity supply due to existing debt.
Main Court Arguments: First, the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence that its representatives actually attempted to enter the defendant’s facilities. Second, acts of non-admission have significant procedural defects – they do not contain clear details of place and time of entry attempt. Third, the defendant has several different facilities, so it is unclear which electrical installations the representatives were not allowed to access.
Court Decision: Leave previous court decisions unchanged, which denied the electricity supplier’s claim.
Case No. 915/240/24 dated 18/03/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: A National Guard military unit demanded to recover 3,518,258.40 UAH in damages from LLC “TRADE-PRIM” for overpricing of stateContract for the Production of Military Underwear.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Plaintiff did not prove the unlawfulness of the Defendant’s actions, as the goods were fully delivered without remarks;
– The audit report is not an indisputable proof of violation;
– There is no evidence that the Defendant is not the manufacturer of the goods;
– At the time of the contract, there were no legally established restrictions on the level of profit.
3. Court Decision: Completely reject the claim for damages.
Interestingly, the court essentially protected the interests of the private company by indicating the unproven nature of its unlawful actions.
Case No. 910/6422/24 dated 25/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: State Enterprise “Ukrvuhillia” attempted to modify the terms of the returnable financial assistance agreement regarding the terms of money return.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Plaintiff had already modified the contract twice due to military actions, therefore references to the same circumstances cannot be grounds for another modification.
2. At the time of signing additional agreements, the parties were already aware of military circumstances and could have anticipated them.
3. Risks of military aggression are common to both parties of the contract and cannot be grounds for its modification.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to amend the contract, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 902/538/16 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company” against LLC “Riton” in a bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court established that PJSC “Ukrinbank” and PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company” are the same legal entity, despite the name change. The court concluded that the change of the bank’s name does not affect its previous obligations and creditor rights. The appellate court incorrectly rejected the recognition of the Company’s monetary claims without substantively examining the circumstances of the loan agreement debt.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate commercial court and send the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate the case circumstances.
Case No. 912/391/24 dated 26/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery by JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” from LLC “Svitlovodsk River Terminal” of debt for services related to receiving, dispatching, redirecting, and processing cargo for a total amount of almost 5 million hryvnias.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The disputed legal relations are services related to cargo transportation by railway and their storage
– Such legal relations are subject to a special statute of limitations – 6 months according to part 5 of Article 315 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine
– The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit beyond the established statute of limitations, therefore the claim should be rejected
3. Court Decision: Leave the court decisions of previous instances unchanged, reject the claim of JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”.
Case No. 910/1317/24 dated 26/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring illegal the decision of JSC “Ukrhazvydobuvannia” to dismiss the director of LLC “Naftohaz Drilling” PERSON_1 from the position.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Director did not properly execute the founder’s decision regarding the preparation of financial plans and investment programs
– Violated the contract terms in terms of ensuring the performance of tasksFounder’s Violations:
– Failed to ensure timely convening of the company’s annual general meeting
– Submitted documents containing significant violations of the Naftogaz group’s internal regulations
3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision to reject the claim and recognize the director’s dismissal as lawful.
Case No. 758/8581/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal in a criminal case of intentional infliction of serious bodily harm.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate court correctly assessed the evidence and adhered to all procedural norms. The court took into account the case circumstances, including the absence of previous convictions for the accused and the circumstances of the criminal offense. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, considering the appellate court’s decision to be substantiated and lawful.
Court Decision: Uphold the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and reject the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 592/18006/18 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legalization (laundering) of funds obtained through criminal means in the case of the director of LLC “KOLPRO”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the previous instance courts improperly examined the evidence in the case, in particular, unjustifiably declared the specialist’s conclusion inadmissible and did not take into account that a person can be held liable for money laundering even after being exempted from liability for the predicate crime. The court pointed out the formal approach of the appellate court, which did not conduct an in-depth analysis of the case circumstances and evidence.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Sumy Court of Appeal and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance with a detailed examination of all case proceedings.
Case No. 208/1752/21 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A traffic accident in which PERSON_7 hit a pedestrian PERSON_8, causing serious bodily harm.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court found the imposition of additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles justified, as the driver grossly violated traffic rules. Second, the court took into account the severity of the consequences – the victim suffered serious bodily harm. Third, the court partially considered mitigating circumstances, including the victim’s position and the fact that the guilty party fully compensated for the damage.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal and reduced the additional punishment from 3 years to 1 year of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.
Case No. 211/2531/20 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_8 for murdering her grandmother PERSON_9 on December 12, 2019.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The appellate court approached the case formally, without providing comprehensive motivation for its conclusions and without verifying all arguments of the defense.
2. The appellate instance court recognized the commission of a crime against an elderly person as an aggravating circumstance but did not provide adequate evidence for such a conclusion.
3. The appellate court did not comprehensively examine the evidence in the case, in particular, did not provide an assessment ofHere is the translation of the text:
by witness testimony and expert examinations, which the defense side pointed to.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and assign a new review in the appellate court with a detailed examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 922/2435/24 dated 25/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for completed capital repair works of a power transformer amounting to 3,555,127.46 UAH.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff fully completed the transformer capital repair works before the start of active hostilities
– The defendant received the work completion certificate but did not sign it and did not raise any objections
– The fact of work performance is confirmed by the provided evidence, including witness testimonies
– The absence of tax invoice registration is not grounds for refusing payment
3. Court Decision: Uphold previous court rulings on recovering 3,555,127.46 UAH of debt from JSC “Ukrainian Railways” in favor of LLC “Smart Energy Service”.
Case No. 910/3336/24 dated 26/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The association of apartment building co-owners challenges utility service charges by the management company after changing the building management form.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Co-owners did not provide official notification to the management company about contract termination within the legally established timeframe
– There is no evidence of impropriety in the management company’s continued service charges
– Change of manager does not automatically terminate previous contractual obligations
3. Court Decision: Leave previous court rulings unchanged, refusing the OSBB’s cassation appeal.
Important: The court clearly adhered to the principle that formal procedural compliance is key in resolving disputes of this nature.
Case No. 910/11352/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of monetary funds from LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” in favor of LLC “Gasoiltechnopipe” in the amount of 3,095,400.00 UAH, paid under a bank guarantee.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff completed the works under the contract in full, although with deadline violations, but the defendant accepted the works without remarks.
2. According to Article 27 of the Law “On Public Procurement”, performance guarantee is returned after its execution by the winning participant.
3. The basis for retaining the bank guarantee is specifically non-performance of the contract, not violation of its execution timeframes.
Court Decision: The court satisfied the claim of LLC “Gasoiltechnopipe” and recovered 3,095,400.00 UAH of bank guarantee from LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”.
Case No. 911/3313/23 dated 25/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a supply contract and accrued penalties for violation of goods delivery terms.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The supplier (LLC “SVIT-BUD LTD”) systematically violated delivery terms, under-delivering goods for a total amount of 2,654,061.15 UAH across fourteen orders
– The contract provides penalties for delivery term violations in the form of penalties and fines
– The court established that the calculation of penalties corresponds to the contract terms and legislation
– The appellant did not provide convincing evidence to reduce the penalty amount
3. Court Decision: [Note: The last part of the text appears to be cut off]Leave the previous instance decisions unchanged and recover in favor of the buyer (LLC “BRIS PROJECT”) 420,385.19 UAH after mutual offset.Case No. 440/12540/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the dismissal of a civil servant from the position of Deputy Head of the Poltava Customs Department due to position reduction during martial law.
Main Court Arguments:
The Supreme Court established that the procedure for dismissing a civil servant during martial law has not changed, and the employer is still obligated to offer alternative positions. The court pointed out that the prohibition on transferring persons appointed without a competition during martial law does not mean an automatic impossibility of offering another position. Judges of previous instances incorrectly interpreted the legal norms, effectively depriving the employee of the right to transfer.
Court Decision: Annul the decisions of previous court instances and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance, taking into account the provided legal conclusions.
Case No. 990/220/23 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice to dismiss a judge from the position for violating the oath, committed in 2014.
Main Court Arguments:
– The HCJ decision was made with a violation of the statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (more than 9 years after the imputed actions)
– The HCJ did not provide proper motivation for the grounds for dismissing the judge
– The decision was made beyond the powers provided by law
– Principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations of the judge were violated
Court Decision: The claim was satisfied, the HCJ decision on dismissing the judge was declared illegal and canceled.
The court thoroughly analyzed the judge’s dismissal procedure, referring to the ECHR practice and constitutional principles, and concluded about the unlawfulness of the HCJ’s actions.
Case No. 320/5033/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URPI).
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court pointed to the need to apply uniform conditions of liability for late registration of all tax invoices, which were subject to a moratorium until May 27, 2022.
2. The court recognized that from May 27, 2022, the moratoriums on applying penalty sanctions were terminated, but emphasized the need to consider the specifics of wartime and the rule of law principle.
3. The panel of judges drew attention to the need to verify the correctness of calculating penalty sanctions and compliance with the principle of non-discrimination of taxpayers.
Court Decision: Annul the decisions of previous court instances and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the case circumstances and verification of the correctness of penalty sanctions calculation.
Case No. 380/11387/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on applying penalty sanctions for late registration of tax invoices.
Main Court Arguments:
The Supreme Court established that the final deadline for registering tax invoices for February-May 2022 is July 15, 2022, inclusive. The court found the conclusion of previous instances erroneous that the deadline was July 14. For invoices after June 1…Here is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
In 2022, general rules of registration and responsibility are in effect. The determining criterion is the taxpayer’s ability to timely fulfill obligations.
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the penalty of 38,808 UAH for the tax invoice dated 13.04.2022, as it was registered on 15.07.2022, which corresponds to the legally established term.
Case No. 340/3094/24 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Serviceman PERSON_1 challenges the military unit’s decision not to accrue additional compensation of 100,000 hryvnias for participation in combat operations in the territory of Kherson from January 28 to February 9, 2023.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Previous instance courts did not conduct a full and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances, in particular, they did not clarify the details of the plaintiff’s combat tasks.
2. Courts groundlessly rejected the military unit’s certificate of the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations without verifying primary documents.
3. References that the territory was not included in combat zones are unfounded, as Kherson was included in the list of possible combat territories.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate all case circumstances.
Case No. 916/1738/19 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the powers of the Communal Establishment “Odessreklama” to carry out the dismantling of an advertising structure placed on a building’s roof without the appropriate permit.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court confirmed that executive bodies of the local council have the authority to control outdoor advertising placement and make decisions on dismantling advertising structures without involving the State Consumer Service. The court noted that local self-government bodies can regulate issues of improvement and advertising placement in their territory, and dismantling is a form of implementing control powers.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate administrative court and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly investigate all circumstances and evidence.
Case No. 916/1738/19 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute regarding the powers of the Communal Establishment “Odessreklama” to carry out the dismantling of an advertising structure placed on a building’s roof without the appropriate permit.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court believes that local authorities have the power to control outdoor advertising placement and make decisions on dismantling illegally installed advertising structures. The court emphasized that the executive body of the city council is the body that issues advertising permits, monitors compliance with placement rules, and can make decisions on eliminating violations, including dismantling advertising means without permission.
Court Decision: Cancel the resolution of the appellate administrative court and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly investigate all circumstances and evidence.
Case No. 0827/2899/2012 dated 24/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement in foreign currency from the borrower.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The bank did not observe the mandatory pre-trial procedure for resolving the issue of early repayment of funds under the consumer loan, as provided by the Law “On Protection
