Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by LLC “Agri-Alpha” in the amount of 31,174,733.00 UAH in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Rayiz Company”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Previous instance courts incorrectly assessed primary documents confirming the economic transaction, focusing only on formal deficiencies in expense invoices.
2. Courts did not investigate the reality of goods movement, delivery contract conditions, and actual circumstances of economic relations between parties.
3. Absence of certain details in primary documents cannot automatically indicate invalidity of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: Cancel decisions of previous instance courts and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for detailed examination of case circumstances and providing proper legal assessment of submitted evidence.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims by Private Joint Stock Company “named after Telman” in the amount of 216,000 UAH in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Rayiz Company”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to signs of party interconnectedness – PJSC “named after Telman” and the debtor are controlled by the same beneficiary.
2. Payment orders provided by the creditor were recognized as improper evidence due to absence of mandatory details.
3. The creditor did not provide bank statements that would unequivocally confirm money movement and the reality of the economic transaction.
Court Decision: Reject recognition of creditor claims by PJSC “named after Telman” in the amount of 216,000 UAH, leaving previous instance decisions unchanged.
Case No. 903/86/23 (903/884/23) dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of vehicle purchase and sale agreement (Land Rover Range Rover Sport) between LLC “Samson Zakhid” and an individual.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The car was sold at a price almost twice lower than market value (797,758 UAH instead of 1,603,961 UAH).
2. The agreement was concluded in a “suspicious period” – three years before bankruptcy case initiation.
3. The sale occurred during a period of existing creditor debt, which may be considered intentional asset concealment.
Court Decision: Leave previous court decisions unchanged regarding invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement and return of the vehicle to the company.
Case No. 240/113/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of individual entrepreneur’s inaction as unlawful regarding non-preparation of civil protection shelter.
Main Court Arguments:
1. State Emergency Service and local self-government bodies do not have legislatively defined powers to independently file a lawsuit about bringing the protective structure into proper condition.
2. The prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of protecting state interests directly by State Emergency Service or local self-government bodies.
3. The court clearly indicated that even under martial law, authorities can act exclusively within powers granted by law.
Court Decision: Leave prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 990/162/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding non-disclosure of public information about judicial dossiers.
The court was guided by several key arguments, firstly, by Ukrainian legislation on access to public information, specifically Articles 15 of the Law “On Access to Public Information”and 85 of the Law “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges”. Secondly, the court recognized that the commission violated the principles of transparency and openness by restricting access to information about judicial files. Thirdly, it was established that the plaintiff’s request had legitimate grounds and requires immediate response from the respondent.
The court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges as unlawful and obliging it to restore access to judicial files on the official website.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Private Enterprise “Union of Landowner Farmers “Svitanok” against Private Joint Stock Company “Raiz Company” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 204,697.11 UAH.
Main arguments of the court: The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness between enterprises with a common ultimate beneficial owner. The creditor did not provide proper and reliable primary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions and the occurrence of debt. In particular, the submitted documents lack original contracts, the persons who signed the invoices are not identified, and there are no unequivocal proofs of settlements.
Court decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances refusing to recognize the creditor claims of Private Enterprise “Union of Landowner Farmers “Svitanok” for the amount of 204,697.11 UAH.
Case No. 918/1217/21(918/500/24) dated 19/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Imposing subsidiary liability on participants of LLC “Eco Doc” for driving the enterprise to bankruptcy.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The liquidator provided evidence of systematic asset withdrawal from the company during 2019-2020 through entering into unprofitable transactions and alienation of property.
2. The defendants could not refute the presumption of their guilt in the bankruptcy of the enterprise and prove the good faith of their actions.
3. A causal relationship was established between the participants’ actions and the company’s insolvency, in particular due to the absence of property and funds to repay debts.
Court decision: To uphold the resolution of the appellate court on imposing subsidiary liability on participants of LLC “Eco Doc” in the amount of 3,248,083.09 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Agricultural Collective Enterprise “Druzhba” for the amount of 8,719,876.00 UAH in the bankruptcy case of Private Joint Stock Company “Raiz Company”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness of parties and potential interest.
2. Payment orders provided by the creditor were recognized as improper evidence due to the absence of mandatory details.
3. The creditor did not provide bank statements that would unequivocally confirm the movement of funds and the reality of the economic transaction.
Court decision: Refuse Agricultural Collective Enterprise “Druzhba” in recognizing creditor claims for the amount of 8,719,876.00 UAH in the bankruptcy case of Private Joint Stock Company “Raiz Company”.
Case No. 991/10162/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of dispute – claim by the State of Ukraine represented by the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office about recognizing assets as unjustified and their recovery in state revenue.
The court carefully analyzed the provided evidence and concluded that the prosecutor’s office failed to convincingly prove the illegal origin of the defendant’s property. The court took into account all submitted case materials, in particular evidence regarding the sources of funds and assets. The panel of judges concluded about the absence of unequivocal grounds for satisfactionHere is the translation of the text into English:
Claim for Recognition of Assets as Unjustified.
The court decided to completely reject the claim and lift the previously imposed arrest on the defendant’s apartment.
Case No. 360/48/23 dated 31/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the dismissal of a civil servant from the position of Head of the Eastern Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice in connection with the reorganization of the body.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Ministry of Justice violated the dismissal procedure by not offering the plaintiff an equivalent or lower position in accordance with her qualifications.
2. The appointing authority did not analyze the work productivity and qualifications of civil servants during the reorganization.
3. The proposed position of regional coordinator did not meet legal requirements, as it had a different appointing authority.
Court Decision: Reinstate PERSON_1 to the position of Head of the Eastern Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice and recover average salary for the period of forced absence.
Case No. 420/6849/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A private notary challenges the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, considering it unlawful.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in the decisions of previous instances, which did not fully and properly investigate the circumstances of the case. The court believes that the appellate administrative court did not provide proper legal assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments and did not take into account all important legal nuances when considering the case. The panel of judges concluded that the case requires additional study and comprehensive analysis.
Court Decision: The cassation complaint was partially satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling was canceled, and the case was sent for a new review to the appellate administrative court.
Case No. 2а-5628/11/2670 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of the legal entity Closed Joint-Stock Company “TRP” based on a claim by the State Tax Inspectorate in the Holosiivskyi District of Kyiv.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court violated procedural norms by considering the case without properly notifying LLC “Alga Ukraine GmbH” about the date, time, and place of the court session. The court emphasized that there is no evidence of sending a summons to the appellant, and the representative’s motion for participation in the case review was not taken into account. This violated the principles of adversarial proceedings and the party’s right to a fair trial.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint of LLC “Transport 2018”, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Administrative Court, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance court.
Case No. 560/17450/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A prosecutor filed a lawsuit to compel a municipal enterprise to bring civil protection shelters to a state of readiness.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. A prosecutor can represent the state’s interests in court only in exceptional cases when an authority does not exercise or improperly exercises the protection of state interests.
2. In this case, the Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service does not have the right to independently file such a lawsuit, so the prosecutor cannot file a claim on its behalf.
3. Legislation has not empowered the State Emergency Service with the authority to apply to an administrative court with requirements to bring protective structures into proper technical condition.
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court rulings on returning the claim unchanged.
CaseCase No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of PJSC “New Life” against the debtor PJSC “Raize Company” for the amount of 429,196.03 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of the reality of economic transactions
– Payment orders have an incomplete set of requisites
– It was established that PJSC “New Life” is connected with the debtor through a common beneficial owner
– There are no bank statements confirming the movement of funds
– A heightened standard of proof was applied to the creditor due to the presence of signs of interconnectedness
Court Decision: Reject the recognition of creditor claims of PJSC “New Life” for the amount of 429,196.03 UAH, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 914/2693/23(914/3474/23) dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a unilateral transaction – a statement of offsetting mutually similar claims between parties regarding loan repayment.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The loan repayment term under the contract has already expired, confirmed by a court decision in case No. 638/16545/20
– The additional agreement dated 26.12.2019 on extending the loan repayment term was not subject to review in the previous case
– The principle of res judicata (finality of a court decision) prevents repeated consideration of an already resolved dispute
– Offsetting of mutually similar claims complies with legislation requirements
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution and maintain the first instance court decision refusing to invalidate the transaction.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by LLC “Dnister Agro LTD” against PJSC “Raize Company” in the bankruptcy case for a total amount of 225,197.48 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof due to the interconnectedness of parties and risks of recognizing fictitious debt.
2. Payment order No. 5 dated 13.05.2015 was recognized as an improper evidence due to the absence of mandatory requisites.
3. Significant deficiencies were found in the provided invoices – absence of responsible persons’ positions, power of attorney numbers, etc.
Court Decision: Partially cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to further investigate the circumstances of debt arising for the amount of 28,543.15 UAH.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by PJSC “Leather Enterprise ‘Svitanok'” against PJSC “Raize Company” for the amount of 2,319,957.23 UAH in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court found that previous judicial instances improperly evaluated evidence, particularly payment orders provided by the creditor.
– Courts did not clearly establish which specific requisites were missing in the submitted documents.
– The Supreme Court pointed to the need for comprehensive and complete investigation of the provided evidence, including clarifying the form of accounting and compliance of documents with established requirements.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to the first instance court to re-analyze the creditor’s monetary claims.
Case No. 914/2693/23(914/3478/23) dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a unilateral transaction – a statement of offsetting mutually similar claims.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. In case No. 638/16545/20, the fact of loan repayment term expiration by PERSON_2 to LLC “Lutsk Agrarian Company” was already established.
2. The additional agreement dated 26.12.2019 on ext…Translation:
The extension of the loan repayment term until 31.12.2032 was not accepted by the court in the previous case due to the improper behavior of PERSON_2.
3. The principle of res judicata (finality of a court decision) precludes a repeated review of an already resolved dispute about loan repayment terms.
Court decision: Revoke the appellate court resolution and uphold the first instance court’s decision to refuse recognition of the transaction as invalid.
Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of judicial decision prejudice, emphasizing the priority of the principle of judicial decision finality.
Case No. 914/2947/23 dated 27/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Invalidation of contract clauses for aviation fuel supply for state needs regarding VAT inclusion and recovery of unjustly paid funds.
2. Main court arguments:
– Contract provided for VAT inclusion, although legislation required zero rate for military fuel supply
– Funds paid as VAT are unjustly acquired
– Obligation to return such funds arises from the moment of receipt, not from the court decision
– Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 178 lawfully details the mechanism for applying zero VAT rate
3. Court decision: Partial satisfaction of claim – recovery from LLC “OKKO-Business Partner” of 1,973,290.39 UAH in inflation losses and 1,340,484.23 UAH in 3% per annum.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]
