Case No. 500/1889/18 dated 02/04/2025
Judgment Summary:
1. Defendants:
– PERSON_9 – Deputy of the Odesa Regional Council
– PERSON_10 – Deputy Head of the Izmail Local Prosecutor’s Office
2. Incriminated Actions:
Receiving an illegal benefit of a particularly large amount for:
– Not creating obstacles in the economic activities of enterprises
– Assisting in their activities
– Using official position
3. Sentence:
PERSON_9:
– 10 years of imprisonment
– Deprivation of the right to hold positions in government bodies for 3 years
– Confiscation of property
PERSON_10:
– 8 years of imprisonment
– Deprivation of the right to hold positions in the justice system for 3 years
– Deprivation of class rank
– Confiscation of property
4. Additional Decisions:
– Mobile phones confiscated
– 40,000 dollars returned to the Security Service of Ukraine
– Preventive measures changed
– Pre-trial detention period counted towards the sentence
5. Case Specifics:
– Corruption crime
– Evidence collected through covert investigative actions
– Detailed analysis of the defendants’ official powers
The judgment becomes legally binding 30 days after its pronouncement.
Case No. 910/6180/20 dated 03/04/2025
Judicial Decision Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Appeal against a court decision in a case of debt collection under a credit agreement, filed by a company shareholder who was not a party to the case.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The court thoroughly analyzed the reasons for missing the appeal deadline, provided by “Modern Metallurgical Company”.
– It was established that the appellant had a real opportunity to timely obtain information about the court proceedings, as a company shareholder.
– The court found the reasons for missing the deadline non-valid, as they were caused by the appellant’s passive behavior, not objective obstacles.
– It was emphasized that non-participation in the case does not exempt a person from the obligation to prove the validity of the missed deadline reasons.
3. Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal and leave the appellate commercial court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 520/4082/2020 dated 01/04/2025
Judicial Decision Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kharkiv Oblast regarding penalty sanctions against KSP “Kharkivhorlift” for late tax payment.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Judicial economic expertise did not confirm the fact of late transfer of personal income tax and military levy.
– The enterprise actually paid all necessary taxes, therefore applying penalty sanctions is unjustified.
– The court deviated from previous practice of qualifying tax violations, indicating that insignificant reporting errors cannot be grounds for fining.
3. Court Decision: Uphold previous court rulings on partial cancellation of tax notifications-decisions and reject the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service’s claims in full.
Case No. 916/5009/23 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute – recognition of the contract as concluded, obligation to perform actions, and recovery of 1,713,301.63 UAH from the Joint-Stock Company “Kherson Regional Enterprise Firm “Vzuttia”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal. The court’s reasoning is based on the fact that previous judicial instances (Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and South-Western Appellate Commercial Court) correctly assessed the evidence and reached a substantiated decision. The court established that the claims are legal and confirmed by relevant evidence.
Supreme CourtLeft without satisfaction the cassation appeal of JSC “Kherson Regional Enterprise of the Firm “Vzuttia” and confirmed the decision of previous judicial instances.
Case No. 380/4446/23 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of applying penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URPI) during the period of martial law.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Legislation established a moratorium on the application of penalties from March 1, 2020, to May 26, 2022, but with certain limitations.
2. For taxpayers who have the ability to timely fulfill their obligations, exemption from liability is provided for late registration of tax invoices drawn up from February 1 to May 31, 2022, subject to their registration by July 15, 2022.
3. The court took into account that the taxpayer had the ability to comply with invoice registration rules, and therefore, their actions are culpable.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the resolution of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the court of first instance, which found most penalties legitimate, except for a fine of 833.33 UAH for one tax invoice.
Case No. 440/7205/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring illegal and canceling the decision of the Poltava City Council on extending the placement of a temporary structure and its attachment passport for LLC “Livbest”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The temporary structure with an area of 76 sq.m. almost twice exceeds the maximum permissible area of 30 sq.m. established by law.
2. LLC “Livbest” did not obtain approval from the National Police for the placement of the temporary structure, which is mandatory under the Unified Rules.
3. The Poltava City Council and the Urban Planning Department, while extending the validity of the attachment passport, did not verify compliance with legal requirements and did not bring the location of the structure into compliance with established norms.
Court decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, declaring illegal the points of the city council’s decision and canceling the attachment passport of the temporary structure.
Case No. 640/34282/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding additional VAT assessment and reduction of negative VAT value.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed primary documents and established that economic transactions between LLC “AMSTRUD” and its contractors are real.
2. The absence of a significant number of employees or fixed assets from contractors is not an indisputable proof of the unreality of transactions.
3. The controlling body did not provide convincing evidence of the fictitious nature of economic transactions, and references to criminal proceedings cannot serve as a basis for concluding the absence of real movement of goods/services.
Court decision: Leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on canceling tax notifications-decisions and recognize the actions of the controlling body as unlawful.
Case No. 380/6549/24 dated 01/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing a fine for late registration of tax invoices.
2. Main arguments of the court:
: The Supreme Court essentially changed the previous practice regarding the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
– The period from March 2020 to May 2022 had a moratorium on penalties due to quarantine
– Legislation did not create clear conditions for taxpayers regarding invoice registration
– The principle of the rule of law isMaintains an equal approach to all taxpayers
– It is necessary to consider the taxpayer’s ability to fulfill their obligations
3. Court Decision: Annul previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to thoroughly examine the circumstances.
Key Thesis: The court essentially sided with the taxpayer, pointing out the unfairness of the existing penalty mechanism.
Case No. 348/2882/23 dated 27/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint by the victim’s representative regarding the leniency of the punishment imposed on a person who caused minor bodily injuries.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed penalty of a 1,700 UAH fine is fair and corresponds to the severity of the offense. When sentencing, several circumstances were taken into account: the offender’s lack of criminal record, positive character reference, having a child and an incapacitated parent under care, as well as the status of a military reservist.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions and rejected the cassation complaint of the victim’s representative.
Case No. 346/2420/23 dated 01/04/2025
The case concerns a fight between two individuals (PERSON_6 and PERSON_7) and the victim PERSON_11 near a children’s entertainment center in Kolomyia.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Video recording and witness testimonies confirmed that PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 intentionally struck the victim PERSON_11 – one blow to the face and one kick to the buttocks, respectively.
2. The court did not recognize the defense’s arguments about necessary self-defense, as the blows were struck at a moment when the victim was not encroaching on the defendants’ life and health.
3. Forensic medical examination confirmed the presence of minor bodily injuries to the victim.
The court decided to find PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 guilty of criminal offenses and impose a fine of 850 hryvnias each, as well as recover 10,000 hryvnias of moral damages and 11,000 hryvnias of court expenses from each in favor of the victim.
Case No. 320/16011/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolutions of the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Utilities (NCREP) regarding the suspension of the license of JSC “Cherkasygaz” and the issuance of a license to LLC “Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Interim measures must be aimed solely at ensuring the possibility of executing a future court decision, not providing the plaintiff with an immediate result.
2. Suspending NCREP’s decisions on issuing or revoking licenses creates risks for all market participants and may destabilize the functioning of a critically important energy sector.
3. Verification of the grounds for the illegality of NCREP resolutions should be carried out by the court when resolving the dispute on the merits, not at the stage of interim measures.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of JSC “Cherkasygaz” unsatisfied and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 320/18113/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the decision of the Joint Housing Commission of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to refuse to exclude a service apartment for permanent residence.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and clearly defined that disputes regarding housing provision for servicemen are administrative. The court was guided by the fact that military service is a type of public service, and the state provides servicemen with social guarantees, including housing. Therefore, such disputes should be considered in administrative courts, not civilCourt Decision: Revoke the resolution of the appellate administrative court and refer the case for further consideration in the appellate administrative court.
Case No. 320/1390/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute – consideration of the application by LLC “ZAKUPIVLI KOM” for the adoption of an additional decision in the case regarding the appeal of a tax notification-decision.
The court carefully analyzed the company’s application and concluded that the request for legal assistance costs is not subject to satisfaction. At the same time, the court partially granted the motion, recovering court expenses for the court fee for the cassation complaint in favor of the plaintiff. The panel of judges was guided by the principles of procedural fairness and the provisions of administrative procedural legislation.
The court left the application of LLC “ZAKUPIVLI KOM” regarding legal assistance costs without consideration and recovered court expenses in the amount of 27,131.20 hryvnias at the expense of budget allocations of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv.
Case No. 160/32054/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the order of the State Tax Service of Ukraine on the cancellation of the license for the production of alcoholic beverages for LLC “ABK DNIPRO”.
The court carefully analyzed the circumstances of the case and concluded that the STS order requires partial cancellation. The key arguments were the procedural aspects of license cancellation and the absence of indisputable grounds for completely depriving the enterprise of the right to conduct economic activities. The panel of judges took into account that the temporary suspension of the order would not harm public interests and would allow the enterprise to continue its operational activities.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation complaint, maintaining the suspension of the order on the cancellation of the license for LLC “ABK DNIPRO” and canceling the corresponding part of the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 917/1396/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt for electricity supply in the amount of 13,964,736.44 hryvnias between LLC “United Energy” and JSC “Ukrtatnafta”.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s position that the resolution dated 02.09.2024 is not a court decision subject to clarification, as it does not belong to the category of decisions to be executed under the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”. The court noted that the resolution is clear, complete, and does not cause difficulties in understanding, and therefore, there are no grounds for its clarification.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of JSC “Ukrtatnafta” without satisfaction, and the ruling of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court dated 13.01.2025 – unchanged.
Case No. 991/2035/22 dated 02/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding the misappropriation of budget funds in particularly large amounts through fictitious loans and legalization of criminal proceeds.
Main arguments of the court:
1. It was established that PERSON_14, PERSON_12, and PERSON_13 participated in a criminal scheme to misappropriate 259.2 million hryvnias of budget funds under the guise of implementing national projects.
2. The accused entered into plea agreements, providing incriminating testimony against other members of the criminal group.
3. The court took into account that:
– All three are servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
– Previously not convicted
– Have positive characteristics
– Participated in combat operations
– Fully admitted their guilt
Court decision:
1. Find PERSON_14 and PERSON_12 guilty under Part 5 of Art. 27, Part 5 of Art. 191, Part 3 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. Find PERSON_13 guilty under Part 3 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. Impose punishment in the form of imprisonment with probationTranslation:
– PERSON_14 – 5 years
– PERSON_12 – 5 years
– PERSON_13 – 4 years
4. Release from serving the sentence with probation for 1 year.
5. Civil claim is left without consideration, as damages have already been compensated.
Features: The verdict was issued based on a plea agreement, taking into account public interests and the defendants’ contribution to Ukraine’s defense capability.
Case No. 990/312/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 28.12.2022 No. 898/22.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that the challenged decree complies with the legislation. The panel of judges took into account that the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of the document’s unlawfulness. Additionally, the court considered the positions of the Security Service of Ukraine and the State Migration Service, which supported the legitimacy of the presidential decree.
The Supreme Court completely rejected the claim of PERSON_1 and left the Decree of the President of Ukraine unchanged.
Case No. 735/952/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings against a person accused of theft of property during martial law.
The main arguments of the court are that the courts of previous instances incorrectly closed the criminal proceedings without considering the possibility of reclassifying the defendant’s actions under Article 162 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal entry into housing), since the value of the stolen property does not exceed two non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens. The court also noted that the ruling on closing the criminal proceedings can be appealed separately from the verdict, and the appellate court improperly verified the prosecutor’s arguments.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the rulings of the first and appellate instance courts and assign a new review of the case in the court of first instance.
Case No. 640/34282/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute: “AMSTRUD” Company challenges tax notifications-decisions of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast regarding an increase in VAT monetary obligation.
Main arguments of the court: The court thoroughly analyzed documents confirming expenses for legal assistance of a lawyer and recognized them as justified and proportionate. In particular, the complexity of the case, the claim amount (4.8 million hryvnias), the volume of services provided, time spent by the lawyer, and the fact that the case was considered under the general claim proceedings with summoning of parties were taken into account.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast without satisfaction and supported the appellate court’s decision to recover court expenses in favor of the Company in the amount of 20,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 400/15321/23 dated 01/04/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the accrual of penalties for violation of settlement terms in foreign currency during quarantine.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court deviated from the previous legal position and indicated that penalties for currency operations during quarantine are accrued on general grounds. The court argued that:
– The Law “On Currency and Currency Operations” is a special law
– The moratorium on penalty accrual from the Tax Code does not apply to currency operations
– The legislator did not amend the law on currency operations regarding exemption from penalties
The introduction of martial law also cannot be considered force majeure for non-transfer of funds.
3. Court decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance to establish all circumstances of the case.
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Declaring the inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding non-disclosure of judicial dossiers on the official website.
Main arguments of the court:
1. IMPORTANT: The right to access public information is not absolute and can be limited by law in the interests of national security.
2. During martial law, the HQCJ of Ukraine restricted access to judicial dossiers based on the decision of the Council of Judges of Ukraine dated 24.02.2022.
3. After consultations with the Council of Judges of Ukraine on 11.06.2024, confirmation was received about the possibility of partial restoration of access to dossiers.
Court decision:
1. Declare the inaction of the HQCJ of Ukraine unlawful.
2. Oblige the HQCJ of Ukraine to consider the issue of restoring access to judicial dossiers.
Additional nuances:
– The plaintiff has alternative access to information through requests
– The court partially satisfied the claim
– Court fee of 968 hryvnias was recovered in favor of the plaintiff
Case No. 320/19922/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Appealing tax notifications-decisions of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Kyiv regarding additional tax liabilities and penalty sanctions for LLC “Euro Smart Power”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the business transactions of LLC “Euro Smart Power” with 23 counterparties are real, as:
– Counterparties were registered VAT payers
– The company compiled and registered consolidated tax invoices
– There is no evidence of fictitious operations or intent to evade taxation
2. The court found the tax authority’s arguments groundless regarding:
– Fictitious counterparties
– Lack of labor and material resources
– Existence of criminal proceedings
3. It was established that technical errors in reporting are not intentional violations and do not require penalty sanctions.
Court decision: The claim of LLC “Euro Smart Power” was fully satisfied, and all disputed tax notifications-decisions were canceled.
Case No. 761/38791/21 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the court verdict regarding a person who committed intentional minor bodily injury.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the local and appellate courts correctly established the circumstances of the case, in particular, that PERSON_8 on 13.08.2021 intentionally inflicted at least six punches with fists to the face and body of the victim on the basis of suddenly arising hostile relations. The court recognized that evidence of guilt was confirmed by the victim’s testimony, witnesses, and expert opinion. The appellate review without the defendant’s participation was deemed lawful, as he was properly notified and did not provide valid reasons for postponing the review.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the Kyiv Appellate Court and refused to satisfy the cassation complaint of the defense counsel.
Key Court Arguments:
1. Indexation and compensation funds are a component of salary with a compensatory nature, aimed at maintaining the employee’s real income level.
2. The court deviates from previous practice and considers that such disputes should apply the terms from the Labor Code (3 months), not administrative proceedings (1 month).
3. The dispute about monetary allowance indexation is essentially a labor dispute about salary, despite the plaintiff being a serviceman.
Court Decision: Annul the appellate court resolution and refer the case for new consideration.
Case No. 320/16607/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Eastern Interregional Tax Service for Large Taxpayers against LLC “MILOAN”.
The court carefully analyzed the parties’ arguments and concluded that tax notifications-decisions were issued without proper legal grounds. The panel of judges paid special attention to the procedure of accrual and reasonableness of tax obligations. The court established that the tax authority’s actions violate the principles of fairness and legality in taxation.
The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions, fully supporting the taxpayer’s position and recognizing the challenged tax notifications-decisions as unlawful.
Case No. 240/34302/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding recognition of business transactions as fictitious and additional tax liability assessment.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The court established the reality of LLC “MS Social Project” business transactions with contractors, confirmed by primary documents, work completion acts, construction photographs.
2. The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence of transaction fictiveness or artificial business activity.
3. Documents confirm actual use of purchased materials in waste processing plant construction, corresponding to the company’s activity purpose.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the appellate administrative court resolution canceling tax notifications-decisions and satisfying the taxpayer’s claim.
Case No. 380/7481/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Limited Liability Company “AURBUD” challenges the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of three tax invoices.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff provided sufficient documents confirming the business transaction’s reality, including contracts, supplementary agreements, payment orders, invoices, and work completion acts.
2. The controlling authority…
[Note: The last case appears to be cut off mid-sentence]Here is the translation of the text:
The tax authority should not conduct a comprehensive analysis of business transactions at the stage of tax invoice registration, but only verify the availability of necessary documents.
3. The plaintiff provided all requested documents, therefore, the refusal to register tax invoices is unjustified.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the first instance court’s decision on tax invoice registration.
Case No. 160/17789/22 dated 02/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to compel Vocational Technical School No. 88 to bring the civil protection shelter to a state of readiness.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court formed a principled legal position that:
– Civil Defense Authorities do not have direct legislative powers to independently file such lawsuits
– The prosecutor cannot replace the authority responsible for protecting state interests
– Even during martial law, procedural norms must be observed
The court established that the prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of protecting state interests by the relevant authorities.
3. Court Decision: The prosecutor’s lawsuit was left without consideration.
Key Conclusion: The prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject of court appeal instead of the authorized government body.
Case No. 522/12635/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – return of an appellate complaint by a person suspected of criminal offenses under parts 2 and 3 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The court carefully analyzed the cassation appeal and concluded that there are no grounds for its satisfaction. The appellate court correctly returned the appellate complaint, adhering to all procedural norms. The judges noted that the appeal procedure was conducted with violations that make it impossible to accept the complaint for consideration.
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the resolution of the Odesa Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 160/16637/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions of LLC “UNIPLAST” regarding additional profit tax assessment and adjustment of negative taxation object value.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The company’s business transactions with foreign contractors do not fall under the definition of controlled transactions, as the transaction volume does not exceed the legally established criteria.
2. The tax authority did not provide adequate evidence for the necessity of increasing the financial result by 30% of goods value from non-resident transactions.
3. Information about the termination of a foreign company’s registration obtained from internet resources cannot be considered an official tax information source.
4. Accounts payable to a deceased person cannot be automatically included in income without proof of legal succession.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal of the Main Tax Service Department unsatisfied and the appellate administrative court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 813/2616/18 dated 26/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of local self-government bodies unlawful regarding the inclusion of non-residential premises in the list of objects subject to privatization by purchase.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. As of the date of filing the application (22.11.2017), the plaintiff did not provide evidence of making integral improvements to the leased property.
2. There is no written consent from the lessor for making integral improvements, which is a mandatory condition for property privatization.
