Case No. 991/1186/25 dated 28/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of PERSON_1’s appellate complaint against the High Anti-Corruption Court’s ruling on securing a claim regarding recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to state revenue.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the appellate complaint and concluded that there are no grounds for its satisfaction. The appellate chamber agreed with the previous ruling of the court of first instance, considering that the evidence and legal position outlined in the original decision are substantiated and comply with current legislation. The court emphasized that procedural norms were observed, and the grounds for securing the claim are legal.
Court Decision: PERSON_1’s appellate complaint shall be left unsatisfied, and the previous ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court shall remain unchanged.
Case No. 681/258/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a private notary’s refusal to issue a certificate of inheritance under a will.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The will was certified by the village elder who, at the time of certification, had powers from the city council, despite the fact that the decision on her authorization was later partially invalidated.
2. The court emphasized that the cancellation of the council’s decision after the testator’s death does not affect the validity of the will, as this would violate the principle of freedom of testation.
3. The will was drawn up in compliance with all necessary requirements: written form, testator’s personal signature, indication of place and time of compilation.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the legitimacy of issuing a certificate of inheritance under the will.
Case No. 753/23649/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict regarding a phone theft committed during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the local court violated the defendant’s right to defense by not explaining his procedural rights and not providing a memo on rights and obligations. The court emphasized that such procedural violations are significant and impede the rendering of a legal and substantiated judicial decision. The appellate court also did not pay attention to these procedural violations.
Court Decision: Revoke the verdict of the Darnytskyy District Court and the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court and assign a new hearing of the case in the local court with observance of all procedural norms.
Case No. 2609/23854/12 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of PERSON_2’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court.
Main Arguments of the Court: The convicted person filed a cassation complaint with violation of the legally established term – more than three months after the verdict became legally valid. The court noted that the issue of renewal of the procedural term should be resolved by the court that rendered the original decision, not the cassation instance. Missing the term for cassation appeal makes it impossible to request the criminal case for review.
Court Decision: Deny the convicted person’s request to obtain the criminal case for review in cassation order.
Case No. 464/325/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding illegal sale and possession of psychotropic substance PVP.
Main Argum…Court’s Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_6 intentionally and systematically engaged in the sale of the psychotropic substance PVP, including through controlled purchases conducted by PERSON_8.
2. Evidence of guilt is confirmed by protocols of covert investigative actions, expert opinions, and testimony of witness PERSON_8.
3. The court thoroughly analyzed the defense arguments about possible crime provocation and concluded that the law enforcement actions did not contain signs of incitement to crime.
Court Decision: To leave the verdict of the Sykhiv District Court and the resolution of the Lviv Court of Appeal unchanged, that is, to recognize PERSON_6 guilty of sale and possession of psychotropic substances.
Case No. 930/1220/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining an additional term for inheritance acceptance after mother’s death.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff missed the legally established six-month period for inheritance acceptance by almost fifteen years after the mother’s death.
2. The lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant – Voronovytsia Village Council, whereas the case directly concerns the rights of other heirs – the plaintiff’s brothers and sisters.
3. The plaintiff did not involve other first-line heirs – PERSON_3 and PERSON_4 – as defendants, which is a procedural violation.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Additionally, the court emphasized that the refusal to satisfy the claim does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to file a lawsuit against proper defendants in the future.
Case No. 521/5786/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about an attempted robbery of food products worth 223.85 hryvnias, committed during martial law.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The accused PERSON_6 was in a difficult financial situation due to job loss during occupation
– He supports an elderly mother and a minor child
– The stolen products were immediately returned to the victim
– The accused admitted guilt, sincerely repented, and actively assisted in the investigation
– The court considered the insignificant amount stolen and the absence of damage
3. Court Decision: To leave the verdict unchanged, imposing a punishment of 4 years imprisonment with probation.
Additionally, the Supreme Court credited the accused with the period of pre-trial detention at a rate of one day for one day.
Case No. 334/4320/21 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the resolution of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that the previous appellate court resolution requires review. The court believes that the previous decision contained procedural violations that could have affected the objectivity and fairness of the judicial review. The panel of judges established grounds for canceling the previous resolution and scheduling a new appellate review.
Court Decision: To satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, cancel the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal resolution, and schedule a new review in the appellate instance.
Case No. 746/448/21 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against the director of LLC “Nasinnia-Agrokhim” PERSON_7, who was accused of intentionalIn the non-execution of a court decision on recovery of monetary funds in favor of the company “NIBULON S.A.”.
Main arguments of the court: First, the obligation to execute the court decision was assigned to the state executive service bodies, not to the company’s director. Second, bringing PERSON_7 to criminal liability for non-execution of a decision that should be executed by specially authorized persons is unfounded. Third, there is no corpus delicti in the director’s actions, as no direct obligation to execute the court decision was imposed on him.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and denied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, confirming the acquittal of PERSON_7.
1. Subject of dispute: Lawsuit for eviction of a native uncle from an apartment inherited by a nephew.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– PERSON_2 has a long-standing connection with the apartment since 2003 and is a former family member of the previous owner
– Eviction would violate the right to respect for housing under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention
– The plaintiff was aware of the apartment’s encumbrance with the right of use when accepting the inheritance
– There is no evidence that the respondent is damaging the housing or violating cohabitation rules
3. Court decision: Deny the eviction of PERSON_2 from the apartment.
The court deviated from previous practice of evicting persons who have lived in the housing for a long time.
1. Subject of dispute: Criminal case of robbery, theft, and drug possession committed by PERSON_8 and PERSON_9.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established that PERSON_8 and PERSON_9 committed a robbery against PERSON_11 and PERSON_12, threatening them with a knife and seizing property worth over 4,000 hryvnias
– Evidence of guilt is confirmed by victims’ testimonies, investigative experiments, crime scene examination protocols, and physical evidence
– PERSON_9 voluntarily surrendered drugs (cannabis weighing 69.689 g) that he was keeping for personal use
3. Court decision:
The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of conviction for PERSON_8 for robbery (Part 2, Article 187 of the Criminal Code), but closed proceedings for theft (Part 3, Article 185 of the Criminal Code) due to legislative changes.
Subject of dispute: Lawsuit for removing obstacles in using a shared apartment by settling a co-owner.
Main arguments of the court: The court established that the plaintiff is a co-owner of the apartment, and the respondent is creating obstacles to using shared property. State registration of ownership is not a basis for acquiring rights, but only their official recognition. The respondent’s ownership right arose based on a court decision that became legally valid before the lawsuit was filed, therefore there are no grounds for closing the case.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s resolution unchanged, supporting the plaintiff’s settlement in the disputed apartment.
1. Subject of dispute: Criminal case of misappropriation of monetary funds in an especially large amount and intentional non-Enforcement of a Court Decision.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Evidence unequivocally confirms that PERSON_5, together with the company director, developed and implemented a plan to appropriate 959,040 UAH received from the victim.
– The court established the coordinated actions of the accused: they concluded a fictitious storage agreement, did not return the funds to the victim, and deliberately evaded execution of the court decision.
– The court critically evaluated the defense arguments about the absence of intent and statute of limitations, providing convincing evidence to the contrary.
3. Court Decision: Leave the local court’s verdict unchanged, recognize PERSON_5 guilty of misappropriation of funds and non-execution of a court decision, impose a punishment of 7 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 552/2739/17 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court in a criminal case about a robbery.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the cassation appeal. The court concluded that previous judicial instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and legally qualified the actions of the defendants. The defense counsel’s arguments do not provide grounds for cancellation or modification of the verdict, as they do not refute the evidence of the defendants’ guilt in committing a robbery.
Court Decision: Leave the Poltava Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 990/111/23 dated 20/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Ethics Council’s decision on the non-compliance of PERSON_1 with professional ethics and integrity criteria for holding a position as a member of the High Council of Justice.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The Ethics Council’s decision is an intermediate stage of the competitive procedure and does not create independent legal consequences
– The Ethics Council is not a subject of authority in this procedure
– The final decision on election/appointment of a member of the High Council of Justice is made by other bodies
– Limitation of the right to judicial review has a legitimate goal – ensuring stability of legal order
3. Court Decision: Leave the appellate appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged.
Case No. 295/7839/23 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict of the Zhytomyr Appellate Court in a criminal case about a crime under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, or sending of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions are lawful and substantiated. The court found no grounds to satisfy the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is indisputable and comprehensively verified at previous stages of judicial proceedings. The panel of judges believes that the appellate court correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and provided them with proper legal assessment.
Court Decision: Leave the Zhytomyr Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 757/59959/18-ц dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the executiveRegarding the notation of a notary as not subject to execution and recovery of court costs.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the appellate court incorrectly refused the applicant in recovering court costs for legal assistance solely due to the absence of payment proof.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that legal assistance expenses are subject to distribution regardless of whether they have already been paid or will be paid in the future.
3. The court underlined that the amount of expenses is determined based on the legal assistance agreement and provided evidence of the scope of services rendered.
Court decision: To cancel the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for a new review to the appellate court instance for detailed examination and evaluation of the provided evidence regarding court costs.
Case No. 308/10038/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the ruling of the investigating judge regarding partial satisfaction of the complaint about police inaction in criminal proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court emphasized that not all rulings of the investigating judge can be appealed. The legislation clearly defines a list of judicial decisions subject to appeal, and this ruling does not belong to them. The court noted that the right to appellate review does not apply to every individual judicial decision but must be provided for by procedural legislation.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings and rejected the cassation complaint of PERSON_6.
Case No. 295/8165/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (likely related to non-fulfillment of military duty).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint. The court concluded that the previous judicial decisions of the Bohun District Court of Zhytomyr and the Zhytomyr Appellate Court are lawful and substantiated. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the cassation complaint, considering that evidence in the case was collected and evaluated appropriately.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous judicial decisions unchanged and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 273/1427/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of dispute: The accused’s motion to transfer a criminal case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the accused’s motion and concluded that there are no legal grounds to satisfy his demands for changing the case’s jurisdiction. The court was guided by procedural norms of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, particularly Articles 32 and 34, which regulate the procedure for determining case jurisdiction. The motion did not contain convincing arguments indicating the necessity of changing jurisdiction.
Court decision: The accused’s motion was left unsatisfied, and criminal proceedings materials remain in the same court.
Case No. 165/1287/22 dated 24/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Appealing the first instance court verdict regarding a person who evaded community service
