Here is the translation of the legal text:
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 03/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by UKRLENDFARMINGS PLC against PJSC “Raize Company” for the amount of 2,244,948,441.23 UAH under an intra-group loan agreement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The creditor did not provide proper evidence of actual funds transfer
– Documents were submitted only in English without a notarized translation
– Primary accounting documents on cash flow are missing
– Bank references contain contradictory information about the debt
– Interconnectedness of companies through a common ultimate beneficial owner was established
3. Court decision: Reject UKRLENDFARMINGS PLC’s claim for recognition of creditor’s claims in full.
The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence and concluded that the creditor’s claims were not proven.
Case No. 910/13321/22 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Dispute regarding recognition of monetary claims by JSC “Ukrgazbank” against the debtor LLC “Loer Consulting” for the amount of 3,997,518.00 UAH in a bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court:
1) The court established that previously the contract provisions on which the bank bases its monetary claims were declared invalid by the court. 2) The Supreme Court emphasized that in bankruptcy cases, there is a heightened standard of proof – the creditor must provide indisputable evidence of debt occurrence. 3) Since the legal basis for presenting claims was previously declared invalid by the court, the court rejected the bank’s claim for recognition of creditor’s claims.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions rejecting JSC “Ukrgazbank’s” claim for recognition of creditor’s claims against LLC “Loer Consulting” for the amount of 3,997,518.00 UAH.
Case No. 914/2197/18 dated 11/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of return financial assistance in the amount of 4,223,098.00 UAH provided under the agreement dated 20.03.2017.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The return financial assistance agreement was concluded between LLC “Agrofirma “APK-Khmilno” and PERSON_1
– PERSON_1 provided receipts for cash income orders confirming the return of funds
– The company’s economic and financial activities during the disputed period were carried out by PERSON_7, who was given the seal
– The court recognized the provided evidence as proper and reliable, despite some formal deficiencies
3. Court decision: Reject recovery of funds from PERSON_1, as he fully returned the received financial assistance.
Case No. 201/8538/16-c dated 19/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from the heirs of a deceased debtor.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the heirs are obligated to satisfy the creditor’s claims, but exclusively within the value of the inherited property.
2. Since the heirs did not participate in the first instance court proceedings, the court did not determine the exact value of the inherited property, which is a procedural error.
3. According to the heir’s valuation report, the value of the inherited apartment share is 1,120,000 UAH, therefore the court modified the decision, establishing recovery within 560,000 UAH from each heir.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, modifying the court decisions of previous instances and establishing clear limits of debt recovery at 560,000 UAH from each heir within the inherited property.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the appellate court incorrectly applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as suspension of sentence is not provided for community service. Second, the appellate instance court formally approached the consideration of the prosecutor’s complaint, without verifying all arguments and not providing proper legal assessment. Third, the court decision does not meet the requirements of procedural legislation regarding motivation and substantiation.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the ruling of the Ternopil Appellate Court and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance with a requirement to thoroughly verify all circumstances and make a lawful decision.
Case No. 757/26293/19 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Closure of Criminal Proceedings Against a Person Without Their Consent Due to Decriminalization of the Act.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court believes that closing criminal proceedings without the person’s consent violates the presumption of innocence and the right to judicial protection. The court emphasizes that a person should have the opportunity to prove their innocence, as automatic closure of proceedings on non-rehabilitative grounds may negatively affect their reputation. It is important to ensure the person’s right to be heard and to be able to refute the charges.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the rulings of the first and appellate instance courts and assigned a new review of the case in the first instance court, taking into account the provided recommendations.
Case No. 361/5648/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreements and Mortgage Agreement Concluded Without the Owner’s Knowledge and Consent.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court established that the purchase and sale agreements were concluded without the true owner’s will, and thus are not valid. The court deviated from the previous practice of declaring such agreements invalid.
The court believes that the most effective way to protect property rights is a vindicatory claim (property recovery), rather than invalidating the agreements.
Regarding the mortgage agreement, the court noted that it is contestable, not void, and requires verification of the good faith of the acquirer.
Court Decision:
– Reject the invalidation of purchase and sale agreements
– Refer the case for a new review regarding the invalidation of the mortgage agreement
– Uphold the appellate court’s decision in other parts
Key Innovation: The court essentially changed the approach to protecting property rights, recommending the use of a vindicatory claim instead of invalidating legal transactions.
Case No. 686/73/23 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the convicted person PERSON_6’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court in a criminal case of murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate court previously correctly assessed all evidence and circumstances of the criminal proceedings. The panel of judges found no grounds for satisfying the cassation complaint, as the verdict and previous court decisions comply with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation. The defense’s argumentation did not contain convincing arguments that could influence the court’s decision.Supreme Court Leaves Court Decision Unchanged
The Supreme Court left the resolution of the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal unchanged and the convict’s cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 372/845/20 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute – criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, accused of property misappropriation and official forgery.
The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, examining the case about economic crimes. The main arguments included analysis of previous court decisions and evaluation of evidence in the case of property misappropriation and official forgery. The panel of judges thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded about the necessity of partial modification of the previous resolution of the appellate court.
The Supreme Court decided to modify the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and assign procedural expenses to the state account, leaving other provisions unchanged.
Case No. 296/9155/23 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Defender’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 for a criminal offense under Part 4 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (presumably related to evasion of military service).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the defender’s cassation appeal. The court concluded that previous court decisions were made in compliance with criminal and procedural legislation. The defender’s arguments did not contain convincing grounds for cancellation or modification of the appellate court’s verdict.
Court decision: Leave the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal’s verdict unchanged and the defender’s cassation appeal – unsatisfied.
Case No. 921/493/21 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the court decision on approving the report of the debtor’s property sale manager in a case of individual’s insolvency.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Arbitration manager Shymechko A.Ya. did not fully perform his duties in the debt repayment procedure, specifically:
– Did not include rental payment for land plot in the liquidation mass
– Did not add inventory description of property to the report
– There was a fact of inaction for a prolonged period
2. The court deviated from previous practice and emphasized that the manager’s task is not merely to state the absence of property, but to actively search for the debtor’s assets.
3. The arbitration manager’s report does not meet legal requirements and cannot be approved due to incompleteness and lack of proof of actions taken.
Court decision: Leave the appellate court’s resolution unchanged, reject the arbitration manager’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 173/1115/16 dated 20/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Criminal case about receiving illegal benefits by law enforcement officials (investigators) for closing criminal proceedings.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The court thoroughly analyzed all defense arguments and found them unfounded. Specifically:
– Recognized evidence obtained during covert investigative actions as legal
– Confirmed the legitimacy of the search
– Established that witness PERSON_10 did not provoke
– Recognized prosecutor’s and investigators’ procedural actions as compliant with legislation
3. Court decision: Left unchanged the verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, which found PERSON_9 and PERSON_6 guilty of receiving illegal benefits and sentenced to imprisonmentImprisonment for 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold positions in law enforcement agencies.
Case No. 753/12283/22 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case on Causing Light Bodily Injuries.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Video recordings from surveillance cameras confirmed the fact of causing bodily injuries to the victim PERSON_6.
2. The court thoroughly examined the evidence and found the defense arguments about provocation and lack of guilt unconvincing.
3. It was established that the defendant’s actions were not caused by a state of strong emotional excitement but were intentional.
Court Decision: Release PERSON_6 from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, as more than two years have passed since the commission of the offense.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice, for the first time applying release from liability due to the statute of limitations without objections from the victim.
Case No. 157/1664/22 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing against the investigating judge’s ruling on transferring amber for sale in a criminal proceeding where no suspicion has been notified.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court first recognized that the current version of the Criminal Procedure Code does not allow appealing the investigating judge’s ruling on property sale during pre-trial investigation where no suspicion has been notified.
2. Such prohibition violates the constitutional right to judicial protection and property rights.
3. The impossibility of appeal creates a risk of unjustified termination of ownership rights without proper judicial control.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and assign a new review in the appellate instance, effectively providing the owner with the right to appeal the transfer of property for sale.
Case No. 157/1664/22 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint against the Volyn Appellate Court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the appellate court’s decision requires review. The court established procedural violations in the previous ruling that make effective judicial protection of the applicant’s rights impossible. The panel of judges considers it necessary to return the case for a new appellate review for comprehensive and objective examination of circumstances.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the Volyn Appellate Court’s ruling, and assign a new review in the appellate instance.
Case No. 991/14304/24 dated 28/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Applying sanctions to the federal autonomous institution “Russian Maritime Register of Shipping” in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court carefully analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine’s claim is substantiated. The panel of judges took into account the legal grounds for applying sanctions, particularly paragraph 1-1 of the first part of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”. The court recognized that the Russian institution’s actions pose a threat to Ukraine’s national interests and require appropriate legal response.
Court Decision: The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the previous court decision unchanged and rejected the appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine’s representative.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Reconstruction of an apartment by the defendant in a multi-apartment building without permission from other co-owners and state registration.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The defendant carried out apartment reconstruction extending beyond its original volume, interfering with the building’s load-bearing structures without the consent of other co-owners
– State registration of ownership rights to the reconstructed apartment occurred with legislative violations
– Expert examination confirmed the technical possibility of reconstruction but did not cancel the requirement to obtain permits
3. Court decision: Obligate the defendant to restore the apartment and garage to their previous dimensions, as recorded in the technical documentation.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice, clearly defining that state registration does not legalize unauthorized construction.
Case No. 554/5332/23 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Claim for compensation of moral damages in the amount of 1,000,000 UAH in connection with the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Administrative Court Procedure Code norm regarding the impossibility of appealing certain rulings.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Two identical cases were simultaneously in court proceedings – one with the Ministry of Justice, the other with the Treasury Service, but essentially they are identical.
2. The defendant in cases of damage compensation is the state, which participates through a specific body.
3. Since the cases are completely identical in parties, subject, and grounds, the court has the right to leave one of the claims without consideration.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and leave the claim without consideration.
Case No. 710/357/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging the state executor’s ruling on termination of enforcement proceedings regarding alimony collection.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the state executor did not provide clear evidence of full execution of the decision on alimony collection until the child reaches the age of majority.
2. The alimony payment application lacks clear information about the amount of paid arrears and alimony until February 16, 2026.
3. The debtor’s place of work is not defined, so alimony calculation was made based on the average salary.
Court decision: The Cassation Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions to cancel the state executor’s ruling on termination of enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 918/443/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Claiming a land plot of 3.7483 hectares into communal ownership from illegal possession by an individual and a farming enterprise.
Main arguments of the court:
1. PERSON_2, as a member of the farming enterprise “Valentyna”, received a land plot free of charge without transferring it to the enterprise.
2. After receiving the plot, PERSON_2 did not engage in farming activities but immediately leased it to the same farming enterprise.
3. The purpose of obtaining the land plot was not to create a farming enterprise but to obtain land free of charge outside the competition.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings, indicating that such a dispute should be considered under civil proceedings.
Case No. 380/25216/21 dated 27/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the prescription of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy to stop construction works on Red Street, 17 in Lviv.
2. OMain arguments of the court:
– The land plot is located within the historical area of Lviv and the UNESCO site buffer zone
– Construction works were carried out without coordination with cultural heritage protection authorities
– The court deviated from its previous position that non-approval of historical area boundaries cancels the obligation to obtain permits
– The Ministry had the authority to issue a directive to suspend works based on the law on cultural heritage protection
3. Court decision: Uphold the first instance decision on the legality of the Ministry of Culture’s directive and reject the developer’s claim.
Case No. 926/868/24 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of a fine and penalty from LLC “Vyzhnytsya Biofuel Company” for non-payment of a fine imposed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– After bankruptcy proceedings are opened, a moratorium on penalty accrual is in effect
– Penalties accrued during the moratorium period cannot be recovered
– The Law on Economic Competition Protection does not take precedence over the Bankruptcy Code
– The Antimonopoly Committee has no special rights in recovering funds in a bankruptcy case
3. Court decision: Reject the recovery of penalties, leave the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Important: The court clearly adheres to the position of impossibility of penalty accrual during bankruptcy.
Case No. 535/511/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of dispute – criminal proceedings against a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or sending of narcotic drugs).
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the evidence collected during the pre-trial investigation is indisputable and fully confirms the defendant’s guilt. The panel of judges took into account all circumstances of the case, including the nature and social danger of the committed act. The court found that the defense lawyer’s arguments do not refute the main circumstances of the criminal proceedings and cannot serve as a basis for canceling previous court decisions.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the local court’s verdict and the appellate court ruling, thereby confirming the person’s guilt and the punishment imposed.
Case No. 209/366/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of dispute – fraud imputed to PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the evidence of guilt is indisputable. The panel of judges took into account all circumstances of the case, including the parties’ explanations and collected evidence. The court established that PERSON_7’s actions fully correspond to the elements of a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and rejected the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal, confirming PERSON_7’s guilt in committing fraud.
Case No. 755/15993/18 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings against three persons accused of crimes related to narcotic substances (Articles 306 and 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court decided that the case should be transferred for consideration by the Grand Chamber due to the complexity and specifics of the criminal proceedings. The court partially satisfied the motionTranslation:
Regarding the defender’s motion for case transfer, recognizing the need for additional investigation of criminal proceedings. The panel of judges considers that the decisions of lower courts require detailed verification and final legal assessment.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court transferred criminal proceedings concerning PERSON_8, PERSON_9, and PERSON_10 for review by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 127/27447/22 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal in a criminal case concerning PERSON_7, accused of illegal handling of weapons and narcotic substances.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that the previous ruling of the appellate court requires review. The court believes that procedural or material errors were made in the previous judicial decision that could have affected the correct resolution of the case. Therefore, the panel of judges decided to cancel the previous ruling and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, and assign a new review of the case in the appellate court.
Case No. 990/58/23 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging part of the Presidential Decree issued by Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that there are no legal grounds for canceling the challenged part of the decree. Judges carefully examined the procedural and substantive aspects of the case, paying special attention to the legal grounds for the presidential decree. They considered the positions of the Security Service of Ukraine and the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, which supported the President’s position. Moreover, the court recognized that the President’s actions were carried out within the scope of his constitutional powers.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appellate complaint unsatisfied and supported the previous decision of the Cassation Administrative Court.
Case No. 1-1/11 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the defender’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the procedural actions of the appellate court and concluded that the return of the appellate complaint was unjustified. The court believes that the appellate court violated the procedural rights of the defender and the convicted person by unreasonably refusing to accept and review the appellate complaint. The panel of judges established that the appellate complaint met all necessary procedural requirements.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Volyn Appellate Court, and assigned a new review of criminal proceedings in the appellate instance.
Case No. 450/678/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Plaintiffs demanded termination of a donation agreement for a residential house, concluded between Plaintiff-1 and the defendant.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that at the time of presenting the requirement to terminate the donation agreement, the defendant had already alienated the house to a third party (PERSON_4), therefore the condition of “preservation of the gift” necessary for contract termination is absent.
2. According to Article 727 of the Civil Code, the donor may demand contract termination only if the gift remains in the ownership of the donee.
3. Since the defendant incurredHere is the translation of the text into English:
If you have ownership rights to a house, the claim should be rejected specifically on this ground.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, modifying the reasoning part of the previous instance court decisions, but leaving the decision to reject the claim unchanged.
Case No. 922/1948/14 (922/4271/23) dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The creditor demanded bringing the director and founders of the debtor company to subsidiary liability for driving the company to bankruptcy.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– To bring to subsidiary liability, it is necessary to prove the full composition of the offense: object, subject, objective and subjective sides.
– The creditor did not provide convincing evidence that the management’s actions led to the company’s bankruptcy.
– The court took into account the director’s explanation about the loss of documentation and his appeal to law enforcement agencies.
– The fact of bankruptcy does not automatically mean the founders’ guilt.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court denied the satisfaction of the cassation appeal and left the previous court decisions unchanged, i.e., did not bring the director and founders to subsidiary liability.
Case No. 370/1341/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the verdicts of previous instance courts in a criminal case of theft.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the criminal act imputed to PERSON_7 under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft) is no longer criminally punishable, as the relevant law has lost its force. The court concluded that under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings should be closed on the basis of paragraph 4-1 of Part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, i.e., in connection with the decriminalization of the act.
Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was satisfied, previous instance verdicts were canceled, criminal proceedings were closed, and PERSON_7 was released from the correctional colony.
Case No. 753/12890/19 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the court verdict on theft of medical preparations committed by the head of the pharmacy.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Previous instance courts violated the presumption of innocence and did not investigate all possible evidence, including video recording from the scene.
2. The appellate court formally approached the review of the complaint, not properly verifying the arguments of the defense.
3. The standard of proof of guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” was not observed, as not all evidence was properly examined.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and assign a new hearing in the court of first instance.
Case No. 369/2038/22 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the Kyiv Appellate Court verdict regarding the punishment assigned for an armed robbery against two persons.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position that the initial punishment was too lenient given the severity of the crime. The court took into account that the crime was particularly serious – an armed robbery with home invasion, physical violence, and weapon threats. Additionally, the court drew attention to the fact that the convicted persons are wanted, which indicates an unwillingness to take the path of correction.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate court verdict unchanged, assigning PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 a punishment of 8 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
