Case No. 991/5241/24 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition as unjustified and recovery in state revenue of a Mercedes-Benz G 400 D vehicle valued at 5,647,926.68 UAH, purchased by PERSON_2 in the name of the son of PERSON_1, who is a civil servant.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– PERSON_1 is a person authorized to perform state functions
– PERSON_2 did not have sufficient legal income to purchase the vehicle
– The vehicle was actually used by PERSON_1
– This is evidenced by power of attorney documents, administrative protocols, and video recordings
Court Decision: To leave the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, recognize the vehicle as an unjustified asset, and recover it in state revenue.
Case No. 320/2500/23 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition as unlawful and cancellation of tax notifications-decisions regarding depreciation of fixed assets of a solar power plant.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The solar power plant is an integral immovable property object
– The plaintiff incorrectly divided the power plant into separate fixed assets
– No proper evidence was provided regarding different useful life periods of component parts
– Previous instances did not establish all circumstances of the case
Court Decision: Cancel decisions of previous instances regarding satisfied claims and refer the case for new consideration.
Case No. 683/391/23 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Landowner challenges a land lease agreement, which he believes was concluded without his signature.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Although the land lease agreement of February 16, 2021, was not personally signed by the owner, he actually expressed his will to continue contractual relations by receiving lease payments during 2021-2022.
2. The court applied the “venire contra factum proprium” doctrine (prohibition of contradictory behavior), as the plaintiff initially silently agreed to the lease and then suddenly challenged the agreement.
3. The defendant used the land plot for a long time and paid lease payments, indicating actual contractual relations between the parties.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and rejected the landowner’s claim for land return and lease agreement cancellation.
Case No. 336/368/22 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damage caused by improper medical treatment of a shoulder joint injury.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Expertise confirmed that PERSON_2 correctly chose the treatment tactics, considering the nature of the injury and the patient’s refusal of surgical intervention.
2. During initial examination and X-ray, no signs of shoulder joint dislocation were recorded, and subsequent changes in diagnoses reflected the natural dynamics of injury progression.
3. Direct causal relationship between doctors’ actions and negative injury consequences was not established by expertise.
Court Decision: Reject the claim for moral damage compensation.Case No. 220/403/22 dated 24/03/2025
The case concerns providing information assistance to Russian military during the war in Ukraine.
Key arguments of the court:
1. PERSON_6 deliberately provided a representative of the GRU of the Russian Federation, Major General PERSON_8, with information about the movement, location, and actions of Ukrainian military through the Telegram messenger. In particular, she transmitted coordinates, shelling videos, and infrastructure damage information.
2. The court established that the woman acted intentionally, being aware that the information she transmitted would help Russian military in conducting combat operations against Ukraine.
3. Her actions were qualified under Part 7 of Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as assisting the aggressor in conducting combat operations.
Court decision: sentence PERSON_6 to 12 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
The Cassation Court confirmed the correctness of previous instances’ decisions and left the sentence unchanged.
Case No. 466/568/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings for fraud due to expiration of statute of limitations without proper investigation of case circumstances.
Key arguments of the court:
1. Previous instance courts formally approached the closure of criminal proceedings without verifying the completeness of pre-trial investigation.
2. The victim pointed to a specific person (PERSON_8) as the perpetrator of fraud, but investigators did not conduct all necessary investigative actions to establish the circumstances of the crime.
3. Pre-trial investigation bodies ignored the victim’s petition for additional investigative actions, including expert examinations and interrogations.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the rulings of previous instance courts and assigned a new hearing with a requirement to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 1340/4921/18 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging decisions of the Hirske Village Council on approving the General Plan of Hirske village and including farm lands within the settlement boundaries.
Key arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that previous instance courts incorrectly considered the case, as they did not adhere to the special procedure for reviewing cases challenging normative legal acts, as provided by Article 264 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine. In particular, no announcement about the court hearing was published, which could deprive other interested parties of the right to participate in the case. Courts also formally approached the examination of evidence and arguments of the plaintiff regarding violations in the general plan adoption procedure.
Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance, observing the legally established procedure for reviewing cases challenging normative legal acts.
Case No. 280/5710/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Municipal Enterprise “Oblvodokanal” challenges a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
Key arguments of the court:
1. According to the Tax Code, the basis for a fine is the mere fact of violating tax invoice registration deadlines, regardless of delay reasons.
2. Lack of funds in the electronic account or non-fulfillment of obligations by state bodies does not exempt the payer from liability for late registration.
3. The fine amount was determined considering martial law and a special law that reduces penalty sanctions.
Court decision: [Text appears to be cut off]Here is the translation of the provided text:
To leave the enterprise’s complaint without satisfaction, and the previous decision of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 127/2822/18 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the court verdict on murder and robbery of a married couple.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court recognized the guilt of the defendants based on a set of indirect evidence, not only direct testimony.
2. Evidence includes testimonies of accomplices, protocols of covert investigative actions, expert examinations, and telephone data confirming the involvement of the accused in the crime.
3. The court thoroughly analyzed and refuted the defense arguments regarding possible pressure on the defendants, inadequate defense, and an alternative version of events.
Court decision: To leave the verdict of the Vinnytsia City Court and the ruling of the Vinnytsia Appellate Court unchanged, cassation complaints – without satisfaction.
Case No. 758/8581/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Criminal case on causing grievous bodily harm by a store security guard to a visitor during a conflict.
Main arguments of the court: The court found the appellate court’s decision to release the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation reasonable, considering several circumstances. First, the person has no previous convictions and is positively characterized at work and place of residence. Second, the victim has reconciled with the accused and has no claims against him. Third, during the trial, the accused behaved appropriately and showed sincere remorse.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation complaint – without satisfaction.
Case No. 916/1002/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the decisions of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the actions of LLC “TEDIS UKRAINE”.
The court carefully analyzed the procedural grounds of the cassation complaint and concluded that there are no sufficient legal grounds for its satisfaction. The panel of judges established that the previous court decisions were made in compliance with the procedural law. The Supreme Court paid special attention to the fact that the arguments in the cassation complaint do not contain significant procedural violations that could affect the outcome of the case.
The court decided to leave the previous court decisions unchanged, closing the cassation proceedings and refusing LLC “TEDIS UKRAINE” in satisfying the complaint.
Case No. 916/3064/20 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: The Prosecutor’s Office appeals the transfer of a land plot with an area of 1.0020 hectares at the 13th station of Velykyi Fontan in Odesa, which was sold at auction in 2005.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The prosecutor’s demand to declare the city council’s decision invalid is an ineffective method of protection, as the decision has already been executed by concluding a purchase and sale agreement.
2. The state act for ownership rights does not require invalidation, as it is merely a certificate of ownership.
3. The prosecutor’s evidence about the plot’s location in the coastal protection zone was not confirmed – official conclusions from 2005 indicate that the plot is located more than 100 meters from the water’s edge.
Court decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 910/5506/23 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Appealing the valuation of real estate that was forcibly alienated by a military unit under martialStatus.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The property owner can challenge the valuation of forcibly expropriated property only after receiving full compensation for its value.
2. The property valuation report does not create legal consequences and cannot be declared invalid in court.
3. Legislation provides the owner’s right to challenge the property value after receiving compensation by filing a claim for reimbursement.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the correctness of previous court instances’ decisions to reject the claim.
Case No. 910/11482/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt for rent and utility services from the Military Unit in favor of the E.O. Paton Electric Welding Institute.
Main arguments of the court: the military unit did not pay the court fee in full when filing an appellate complaint, submitted an additional receipt of payment outside the court-established deadline, and did not file a motion to restore the procedural term. The court considers that returning the appellate complaint due to non-payment of the court fee is not an excessive formalism and corresponds to procedural legislation.
Court decision – leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate commercial court unchanged.
Case No. 723/884/17 dated 18/03/2025
The case concerns a robbery attack on a woman in the village of Hodyliv, Chernivtsi region.
Main arguments of the court: firstly, the court found inadmissible evidence obtained during covert investigative actions, as communication with police cannot be considered private; secondly, the court indicated that evidence of PERSON_5’s guilt does not meet the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof; thirdly, the court drew attention to incorrect calculation of material damage, which does not take into account partially returned property.
The court partially satisfied the cassation complaints: canceled the appellate court’s verdict regarding PERSON_5 and sent the case for new consideration, and also ordered a review of the material damage amount.
Case No. 953/3196/23 dated 27/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Serviceman PERSON_6 refused to execute the commander’s order to be sent to Bakhmut to perform combat tasks.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The accused demonstratively refused to execute a lawful commander’s order, which is qualified as insubordination
– Medical certificate confirms the accused’s fitness for military service
– Refusal occurred under martial law conditions, making the crime especially dangerous
– The accused’s actions undermine the combat readiness of the military unit
3. Court decision: Leave the local court’s verdict unchanged – 5 years of imprisonment under Part 4 of Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Important: The court clearly argued the impossibility of applying milder punishments due to the specifics of the crime committed under martial law conditions.
Case No. 296/6465/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Claiming an apartment from illegal possession due to it being alienated from the plaintiff’s ownership against her will.
Main arguments of the court: The court established that at the time of the initial case consideration, the defendant PERSON_2 was the apartment owner, but during the appellate proceedings, the apartment was donated to the minor PERSON_7. The appellate court concluded that the claim cannot be satisfied against PERSON_2, as he is no longer the owner.Here is the translation of the provided legal text:
Ruling. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that the plaintiff had already filed a new lawsuit against the new apartment owner in a separate case.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, the appellate court’s ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 201/6810/19 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of inheritance as ownerless and transfer of ownership to the Dnipro City Council.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and established that the territorial community, in case of alienation of inherited property, has the right only to monetary compensation, not the property itself.
2. The court concluded that claims to invalidate agreements and registration records are not an appropriate method of protecting the territorial community’s rights.
3. Since there is no evidence of bad faith of the last property acquirer among the grounds of the claim, the territorial community can only claim compensation for its value at market prices.
Court Decision: Deny the Dnipro City Council’s claim to recognize the inheritance as ownerless and transfer ownership to the community.
Case No. 591/7346/21 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Sumy Appellate Court regarding PERSON_8.
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 believes that the previous decision contains significant procedural violations affecting the correctness of the judicial review. The panel of judges established the need to return the case for additional consideration to the appellate instance for more thorough examination of circumstances.
Court Decision: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal is satisfied, the Sumy Appellate Court’s ruling is canceled, and a new review is assigned to the appellate court.
Case No. 378/450/21 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of murder of a woman, dismemberment, and concealment of her body.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court thoroughly analyzed the evidence and concluded that the combination of indirect evidence unequivocally indicates the convict’s guilt. Second, the court rejected all defense arguments regarding procedural violations, including the inadmissibility of investigative actions and experiments. Third, the court emphasized that the convict did not deny his involvement in dismembering and destroying the victim’s body.
Court Decision: Uphold the Bila Tserkva District Court’s verdict – convict PERSON_5 to 15 years of imprisonment for intentional murder.
Case No. 405/4715/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appealing the investigating judge’s ruling on partial satisfaction of the complaint regarding entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (URPI).
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the appellate court incorrectly refused to open proceedings, as the part of the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to enter information into the URPI regarding a judge’s unlawful actions is subject to appeal. Second, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision guarantees a person’s right to judicial protection and the ability to appeal such decisions in at least two court instances. Third, an unreasonable refusal in appellate proceedings deprives a person of effective access to justice.
Court Decision: Cancel the Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court’s ruling and assign a new review in the appellate court instance.Case No. 535/511/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Illegal Sale of a Particularly Dangerous Narcotic Substance – Cannabis.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the evidence in the case, including operational purchase protocols, video recordings, and witness testimonies.
2. It was established that PERSON_8 repeatedly sold cannabis, acted intentionally, and had the intent to distribute narcotic substances.
3. The court found no signs of crime provocation by law enforcement and recognized the collected evidence as admissible.
Court Decision: Uphold the local court’s verdict, find PERSON_8 guilty of illegal sale of narcotic substances, and impose a sentence of 6 years and 6 months of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 160/5655/22 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing a Temporary Travel Restriction for the Director of LLC “Football Club ‘Dnipro'” outside Ukraine due to a Significant Tax Debt.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The company has a tax debt exceeding 356 million hryvnias, which has not been paid since 2016.
2. According to changes in the Tax Code, if the debt exceeds 1 million hryvnias and is not paid within 240 days, the controlling body may apply to the court to restrict the director’s travel.
3. The court believes that the new legal norm can be applied to existing legal relations, as it is not a punishment but a measure to ensure obligation fulfillment.
Court Decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances regarding the establishment of a temporary travel restriction for the LLC director outside Ukraine until the full repayment of the tax debt.
Case No. 766/3408/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decision of the Kherson City Military Administration to Refuse Consideration of a Consumer’s Application Regarding Disconnection from Centralized Heating.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the plaintiff, as a consumer, has the right to be exempt from court fees in accordance with the Law “On Consumer Protection”. The appellate court erroneously returned the appeal, not taking into account that the subject of the claim relates to consumer rights protection in the field of utility services. The Supreme Court emphasized that legislation provides consumers with the right to refuse centralized heating services according to the established procedure.
2. Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal and refer the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 140/20330/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Tax Authority’s Decision to Refuse Registration of Tax Invoices for LLC “Como-Export”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The court drew attention to the fundamentally new algorithm of interaction between the taxpayer and the controlling body, introduced by the Ministry of Finance order dated January 12, 2023. In particular, the tax authority is now obliged to clearly specify in the notification which documents the taxpayer must additionally provide.
Previous instance courts did not take into account the changes in the procedure and did not analyze:
– whether the controlling body adhered to the new algorithm;
– whether the notifications about additional documents were correct;
– how the taxpayer responded to such notifications.
Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new hearing to thoroughly examine all circumstances.Taking into account the new procedure for monitoring tax invoices.
Case No. 580/3134/22 dated 31/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the controlling body during the moratorium on conducting inspections during the quarantine period.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Paragraph 52-2 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine established a moratorium on conducting inspections during quarantine.
– Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 89 on reducing the moratorium period cannot change the norms of the Tax Code.
– The court clearly indicated that an inspection conducted during the moratorium does not create legal consequences and is illegal.
3. Court decision: The cassation complaint of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy Oblast was left unsatisfied, the resolution of the appellate court on cancellation of tax notifications-decisions was left unchanged.
Case No. 320/2500/23 dated 25/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Declaring illegal and cancelling tax notifications-decisions regarding the calculation of depreciation of fixed assets of a solar power plant.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The solar power plant is an integral immovable property object that should be classified as a structure (3rd group of fixed assets)
– The plaintiff improperly divided the power plant into separate fixed assets of the 4th group
– Previous instances did not properly investigate evidence regarding different useful life of components
– No justification was provided for the possibility of separating components as independent fixed asset objects
3. Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances in the part of satisfied claims and send the case for a new review.
Key thesis: The taxpayer must substantiate the possibility of dividing an integral object into separate fixed assets with different depreciation periods.
Case No. 440/8483/21 dated 31/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Declaring illegal the decision of the Poltava City Council on extending the placement of temporary trading pavilions and cancelling attachment passports.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position of the appellate court.
– Temporary structures actually constitute one construction with an area of 90 sq.m, which exceeds the permitted 30 sq.m.
– There is no approval from the National Police for the placement of structures.
– Local authorities should have corrected their own mistake and not continue the placement permit.
3. Court decision: Cancelled the resolution of the appellate court, upheld the decision of the first instance court on partial satisfaction of the prosecutor’s claim.
Case No. 320/8258/23 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court clearly determined that the taxpayer is exempted from liability for late registration of tax invoices only during the moratorium period from March 1, 2020, to May 26, 2022.
2. The provisions of paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine do not have retroactive effect and do not automatically replace previous norms.
3. The controlling body correctly applied the fine in accordance with paragraph 120-1.1 of Article 120-1 of the Tax CodeHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
of the Tax Code of Ukraine, since tax invoices were drawn up before the new norms came into force.
Court Decision: Annul previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to thoroughly check the calculation of penalty sanctions.
Case No. 947/23307/20 dated 31/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a loan agreement for the amount of 54,000 US dollars, provided in 2018.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The promissory note dated 02/03/2018 confirms the fact of loan receipt by the defendant
– Forensic examination could not definitively prove or disprove the defendant’s signature due to lack of samples
– The defendant did not provide convincing evidence of non-receipt of funds
– The presumption of legality of the transaction applies, which the defendant did not refute
3. Court Decision: Recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 54,000 US dollars of principal debt and 3% per annum.
The court decision was made in favor of the plaintiff, who proved the fact of loan provision.
Case No. 127/2822/18 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of cassation complaints by convicted PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 against the verdict of the Vinnytsia City Court and the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and arguments of the parties presented in the cassation complaints. The court concluded that previous court decisions are lawful and substantiated, as they are based on proper evidence and correct application of criminal procedural legislation. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the cassation complaints or change previous court decisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the verdict of the Vinnytsia City Court and the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation complaints of the convicted persons were not satisfied.
Case No. 910/13240/22 (910/14563/23) dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claiming real estate (nursery-kindergarten) from the State Company “Ukrspetsexport” due to improper sale of debtor’s property during the moratorium in the bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims extends to the disputed legal relations, therefore the executor’s actions to sell the debtor’s property are unlawful.
2. Each type of electronic auction has its own stage sequence and is not a continuous process, so the moment of publishing information about the sale must be determined for each separate stage of the auction.
3. The Supreme Court deviated from the previous legal position regarding the definition of the “property sale stage”, indicating the need for a narrower interpretation of this concept.
Court Decision: The case was sent for a new review to establish the good faith/bad faith of the property acquirer and verify all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 209/366/20 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Fraud in obtaining state aid by an internally displaced person by concealing information about owning real estate.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. PERSON_7 deliberately did not inform the social protection authority about owning 1/4 of a residential premises, which makes her ineligible to receive state aid.
2. The accused repeatedly (during 2017-2019) submitted applications with false information about the absence of real estate.
3. Her actions were qualified as fraud, as she consciously used deception to obtain monetary funds for a total amountTranslation:
17,352.36 UAH.
Court Decision: Leave the verdicts of previous instances unchanged, dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, recognizing PERSON_7 guilty of fraud.
Case No. 686/73/23 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding intentional murder of PERSON_8, committed by PERSON_6.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PERSON_6 intentionally inflicted no less than 42 blows to various body parts, including the head and chest, which led to death.
2. Evidence of guilt is confirmed by witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and analysis of telephone calls indicating PERSON_6’s involvement in the murder.
3. The defense’s version of self-defense was refuted by the court due to the absence of a real threat from the victim and inconsistency in the accused’s testimony.
Court Decision: Leave the local court’s verdict unchanged, dismiss PERSON_6’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 500/3034/23 dated 31/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging orders of the Bureau of Economic Security to dismiss employee PERSON_1 for systematic violation of service discipline.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– It was established that PERSON_1 systematically violated service discipline, was absent from the workplace for over 45 hours without valid reasons
– Official investigation revealed violations of labor discipline and official duties
– Dismissal is proportional to the committed offense, considering the specifics of service in the BES during martial law
– Evidence in the case marked “DSK” was provided in compliance with legislation
3. Court Decision: Dismiss the cassation appeal, leave the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
The Supreme Court supported the decision to dismiss PERSON_1 as legal and justified.
Case No. 520/25012/24 dated 01/04/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding real estate tax assessment.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Respondent (Main Directorate of State Tax Service) independently canceled the challenged tax notifications-decisions due to changes in local tax resolution.
2. The court drew attention to the ambiguity of grounds for closing proceedings – whether under paragraph 2 or paragraph 8 of Article 238 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Cassation Court pointed to the need for clear substantiation of grounds for closing proceedings and distribution of court expenses.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s resolution and send the case for new consideration to clarify the grounds for closing proceedings and distribution of court expenses.
The Court deviated from previous practice of considering similar cases, clearly indicating the need for thorough motivation of grounds for closing proceedings.
Case No. 340/2276/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute about granting permission to repay the tax debt of PJSC Television and Radio Company “VESELKA” at the expense of property under tax pledge.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court established that previous instance courts improperly investigated the case circumstances, in particular did not verify all taxpayer’s bank accounts.
2. Return of collection orders by the bank without execution may be evidence of lack of funds to repay the debt.
3. Previous instance courts did not fulfill the principle of comprehensive and complete investigation of case circumstances, did not request additional evidence.
Court Decision: Cancel decisions of previous instances and direct…
