Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 10/04/2025

Case No. 295/1287/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict in a criminal case of attempted intentional murder.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous court decisions generally correspond to the circumstances of the criminal proceedings. The court recognized the validity of the initial verdict of the Bohun District Court, while partially modifying the appellate court’s decision. In particular, the court credited the convicted person with the pre-trial detention period at a rate of one day of pre-trial detention per one day of imprisonment.

Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation appeal, leave the district court’s verdict unchanged, and modify the appellate court’s verdict regarding the credit for pre-trial detention period.

Case No. 240/10179/19 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the controlling body’s requirement for a sole proprietor to pay a single social contribution when not actually conducting entrepreneurial activity.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the entrepreneur’s certificate was declared invalid in 2013 due to non-submission of a registration card for inclusion in the Unified State Register. The court emphasized that the absence of a valid registration certificate and non-performance of actual entrepreneurial activity precludes the accrual of a single social contribution. Critically, the court deviated from previous practice, recognizing the invalidity of the entrepreneur’s registration as an unconditional basis for canceling the contribution payment requirement.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the first instance court’s decision declaring the controlling body’s requirement unlawful.

Case No. 380/5804/24 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman demands recalculation and payment of one-time monetary assistance upon dismissal and compensation for unused additional leave.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that for legal relations arising before 19.07.2022, the previous version of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine applies, which does not limit the term for court appeal. The previous instance courts erroneously applied the new law version, which limits the appeal term to three months, violating the plaintiff’s rights.

Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the previous instance decisions, and refer the case for a new review to the first instance court.

Case No. 520/18700/23 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of penalty sanctions for late registration of tax invoices during martial law.

Main Arguments of the Court:

1. The court established that the plaintiff violated the deadline for tax invoice registration from February 2022 to May 2023 but did not apply to the controlling body with a statement about the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations.

2. The Supreme Court clearly determined that after May 27, 2022, the “COVID” moratorium was terminated, and taxpayers could no longer rely on automatic exemption from penalty sanctions.

3. The court emphasized that the regulations on tax invoice registration during martial law have a clear temporal structure with different rules for different periods.

Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the legitimacy of penalty sanctions imposed by the controlling body.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:

Case No. 910/9201/23 dated 01/04/2025
Analysis of the Court Decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses from Private Joint Stock Company “Ukrhydroenergo” for late payment of electric energy accessibility services.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court established that the defendant systematically violated payment terms for services under the contract, delaying payments for various periods of time.
– Service acceptance acts were signed by parties without objections in paper form on the last day of each settlement month.
– The defendant’s evidence of act submission delay does not refute the fact of timely document signing.
– Calculation of 3% per annum and inflationary losses was recognized by the court as arithmetically correct and compliant with contract terms.

3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision on recovering 68,258,931.94 UAH of 3% per annum and 406,575,485.96 UAH of inflationary losses from the defendant.

Case No. 348/1781/21 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Appellate Court in a criminal case of theft (Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

The court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, likely believing that the appellate court made procedural or material errors in case consideration. The appellate court’s decision was deemed requiring review due to possible deficiencies in legal assessment of case circumstances or violations of criminal procedural law.

The Supreme Court decided to cancel the ruling of the Ivano-Frankivsk Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court, which will allow more thorough investigation of criminal proceedings circumstances.

Case No. 320/16059/23 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Main Directorate of State Consumer Service in Kyiv challenged the court’s return of its statement of claim due to non-payment of court fee.

Main Court Arguments: Firstly, the court considers the plaintiff’s reference to lack of funds and martial law insufficient grounds for extending the procedural term. Secondly, the plaintiff provided no evidence of real actions to pay the court fee within two months. Thirdly, the court emphasized that state bodies must act professionally and cannot receive unjustified procedural advantages.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting previous court decisions on returning the statement of claim.

Case No. 160/23553/23 dated 03/04/2025
Analysis of Court Decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on imposing penalties for late registration of tax invoices in 2022.

2. Main Court Arguments:
The Supreme Court confirmed the previous legal position that preferential norms on reduced penalties during martial law (introduced by Law No. 2876-IX) do not have retroactive effect. Meaning, for tax invoices registered before February 8, 2023, old, more severe penalty sanctions apply. The court detailed the temporal boundaries of new norms: before martial law, old rules applied; from 08.02.2023 – new “martial law” rules; after martial law ends, old rules will return.

3. Court Decision: Leave the taxpayer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, thus confirming penalty accrual under old, higher rates.

Case No. 520/6561/19 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notification-decisions and actions of tax authority regarding personal income tax from a loan forgiven by a bank.

Main Arguments…Court Arguments:

1. The tax authority violated the audit procedure, as it did not properly deliver the audit order to the taxpayer at the actual address.

2. The exchange rate difference on a foreign currency loan, forgiven by the bank as a result of restructuring, is not considered an additional benefit and is not subject to taxation according to the transitional provisions of the Tax Code.

3. In this case, the amount of the forgiven debt is less than the calculated exchange rate difference, so there are no grounds to consider it as additional income of an individual.

Court Decision: To leave unchanged the resolution of the appellate administrative court on canceling tax notifications-decisions and recognizing the tax authority’s actions as unlawful.

[Case No. 904/219/24 dated 25/03/2025]

Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling on closing appellate proceedings in the bankruptcy case of LLC “DIL-WEST” by the Eastern Interregional Tax Service.

Main Court Arguments:
– The tax authority did not acquire the status of a participant in the bankruptcy case, as it did not submit creditor claims in the manner prescribed by law
– To acquire procedural rights in a bankruptcy case, it is necessary to officially declare claims against the debtor
– The controlling authority did not apply to the court with any petitions and did not attempt to join the case

Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, and the challenged ruling unchanged.

[Case No. 918/1017/15 dated 25/03/2025]

Subject of Dispute: Bank challenges the appellate court’s refusal to restore the missed term for appealing a court decision in a bankruptcy case.

Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the reasons for missing the term (bank’s liquidation procedure, lack of funds for court fees, staff reduction) are not valid. The court emphasized that the applicant must prove the objective impossibility of timely appeal, not subjective difficulties. The bank did not provide convincing evidence that the introduction of the liquidation procedure actually prevented it from timely filing an appellate complaint.

Court Decision: The bank’s cassation complaint was left without satisfaction, and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.

[Case No. 591/8927/23 dated 31/03/2025]

Subject of Dispute: Recovery of funds from the bank and challenging the withdrawal of funds from a bank card without the client’s consent.

Main Court Arguments: First, the court established that the client actually gave permission to fraudsters to enter his Privat24 on June 27, 2023, by confirming entry from a mobile phone. Second, the client did not immediately notify the bank about unauthorized transactions, but applied only on July 4, 2023. Third, the bank proved that the operations were carried out using the client’s correct personal data.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the client’s cassation complaint without satisfaction and supported the appellate court’s decision to refuse recovery of funds from the bank.

[Case No. 927/885/17 dated 26/03/2025]

Subject of Dispute: Closing the bankruptcy case of Public Joint Stock Company “Siveryanka” after repayment of creditor debt by a shareholder.

Main Court Arguments:
– Shareholder PERSON_1 transferred funds to fully repay creditor claims, except for penalties
– Legislation allows the owner of corporate rights to satisfy creditor claims to close the bankruptcy case
– All competitive creditors received funds, which is grounds for closing the proceedings

Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint of JSC “Polikombank” without satisfaction and confirm the previous court instances’ decision to close the bankruptcy case.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:

Case No. 280/7446/24 dated 02/04/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-consideration of his report on dismissal from military service to care for a person with Group I disability.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The military unit is obliged to consider servicemen’s reports within a month and provide an official response.
– The principle of the rule of law provides for the protection of individual rights and minimization of negative consequences for their legal status.
– Unjustified delay or groundless refusal to consider a report is a violation of the person’s right to proper administration.

3. Court Decision: Revoke the previous ruling of the appellate court and refer the case for a new review to comprehensively and objectively establish the circumstances.

Case No. 440/6483/22 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on applying penalties for allegedly improper use of settlement transaction registrars when selling goods.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly examine the primary documents on which conclusions were made about the violation.
2. Details of each settlement transaction were not established – their composition, quantity, place of execution, presence/absence of settlement transaction registrars.
3. The controlling body made a conclusion without an in-depth analysis of primary documents, limiting itself to the general ledger data.

Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances.

Case No. 160/22662/23 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of imposing penalties for late registration of tax invoices during the martial law period.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. After May 27, 2022, the “COVID” moratorium on penalties was terminated, so the enterprise cannot refer to exemption from liability.
2. The court deviated from previous practice and clearly defined that the moratorium provisions do not apply to the martial law period after May 27, 2022.
3. The enterprise did not contact the controlling body with a notification about the impossibility of fulfilling the tax obligation, which is a mandatory condition for exemption from liability.

Court Decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances and deny the enterprise’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 904/2787/21 (904/2748/23) dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid a surety agreement dated 28.12.2017, concluded between the Subsidiary Enterprise “Automobile Assembly Plant No. 2” and Sarevin Investments LTD.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court drew attention to the need to investigate the real motives for concluding the surety agreement, in particular, whether it was aimed at harming creditors.
2. The courts of previous instances did not properly examine the debtor’s financial condition, the amount of their obligations and assets at the time of concluding the agreement.
3. It was not established whether the conclusion of the surety agreement led to the impossibility of fulfilling monetary obligations to other creditors.

Court Decision: Revoke the decisions of previous courts and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance to fully and comprehensively investigate the case circumstances.

Case No. 913/375/23 dated 25/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling on opening bankruptcy proceedings for the Limited Liability Company “Enera Skhid”.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The authorized person of the debtor’s participants may appeal a court decision only under the condition…

[Note: The last paragraph appears to be cut off in the original text]1. Obtaining the relevant procedural status of a participant in the bankruptcy case.
2. Obtaining such status is associated with a decision of the participants’ meeting to authorize a representative and subsequent legitimization by the court.
3. In this case, the complainant did not prove the objective impossibility of resolving the issue of authorization earlier than 10 months after the opening of bankruptcy proceedings.

Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the ruling of the appellate commercial court unchanged.

Case No. 910/9904/23 dated 26/03/2025
Subject of dispute: The prosecutor demands recognition of the land lease agreement between the Regional Department of the State Property Fund and LLC “Astrenko” as invalid.

Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that the lease agreement is simulated and does not comply with land legislation due to the lack of authority of the parties to dispose of the land plot.
2. However, since the land plot has actually been returned to the university by an act dated 10.03.2023, the court considers the original method of protection ineffective.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the land plot has not been alienated from state possession, therefore a vindication claim is impossible.

Court decision: The case is sent for a new review to the appellate court for additional examination of the case circumstances.

Case No. 761/3302/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_8, accused of intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and intentional destruction of property (Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court discovered significant procedural violations in previous court decisions that do not allow a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case. The court believes that previous instances did not properly investigate the evidence and case circumstances, which could have influenced the correctness of qualifying the defendant’s actions. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new review to further examine all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.

Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and assign a new review in the court of first instance, choosing a preventive measure for the defendant in the form of personal commitment with certain restrictions.

Case No. 645/489/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging by the prosecutor the ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court in a criminal case against a person accused of illegal handling of weapons and explosive substances.

The court carefully examined the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that the appellate court made procedural violations when considering the case. In particular, the court incorrectly applied criminal procedural legislation norms, which could have affected the objectivity and fairness of the court decision. The Supreme Court believes that the appellate review requires repeated conduct in compliance with all procedural requirements.

The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the previous ruling of the Kharkiv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.

Case No. 755/18354/24 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint of the OSBB representative regarding police inaction.

Main arguments of the court: The appellate court incorrectly established the term for filing an appellate complaint, not taking into account that the OSBB representative received the investigative judge’s ruling only on November 5, 2024. The email with the ruling was sent to an incorrect email address, therefore the appellate appeal term was not missed. The appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of the case circumstances and prematurely returned the appellate complaint.

Court decision: Cassation complaint satisfied, appellate rulingHere is the translation:

The court’s decision was cancelled with a new hearing assigned in the appellate instance.

Case No. 303/734/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court in a criminal case concerning PERSON_6, accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and found that the appellate court’s decision requires review. The court concluded that the previous ruling contains significant procedural violations affecting the correctness of the judicial decision. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the appealed ruling and send the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.

Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the ruling of the Transcarpathian Appellate Court was cancelled, and a new hearing in the appellate court was assigned.

Case No. 303/734/24 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Legality of concluding a reconciliation agreement in a criminal case about traffic rule violations.

Main Arguments of the Court: First, the prosecutor believed that in cases of crimes against traffic safety and transport operation, a reconciliation agreement is not allowed. Second, the appellate court unjustifiably refused the prosecutor in opening appellate proceedings without substantively evaluating arguments regarding the impossibility of approving the agreement. Third, the criminal procedural law allows the prosecutor to appeal sentences based on agreements in certain cases.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court’s ruling, and assigned a new hearing in the appellate court.

Case No. 363/4821/23 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages caused by the Russian Federation’s armed aggression against Ukraine.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff suffered significant moral suffering due to the destruction of her house during combat operations, forced evacuation, and psychological trauma.
2. The court considered the plaintiff’s age, duration and intensity of psychologically traumatic circumstances, and the need to make significant efforts to arrange life after losing housing.
3. When determining the compensation amount, the court was guided by principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, avoiding unjustified enrichment.

Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s decision to recover 2,500,000 UAH in moral damages from the Russian Federation in favor of the plaintiff.

Case No. 712/11457/19 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a state executor regarding compiling a requirement for executing a court decision on establishing a mother’s visitation procedure with a child.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The state executor acted within his powers by compiling requirement No. 501 dated January 3, 2024, about ensuring the mother’s visitation with the child.
2. The applicant’s complaint did not contain specific substantiations of the state executor’s violation of enforcement proceedings legislation.
3. The state executor’s requirement corresponded to the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and the Instruction on Organizing Forced Execution of Decisions.

Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and leave the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 560/20045/23 dated 03/04/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions by the State Tax Service regarding additional tax liabilities of LLC “Zakhid-Shliakhbudtrans”.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Courts of previous instances did not verify compliance with the procedure for appointment andConducting a Tax Audit during the Quarantine Moratorium Period.

– The Supreme Court consistently indicates that Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 89 cannot modify the audit moratorium established by the Tax Code.
– Courts must first assess procedural violations and then investigate the essence of economic transactions.

3. Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review for a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the audit procedure.

Case No. 520/12209/19 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding personal income tax and military levy.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court drew attention that the courts of previous instances superficially examined the case circumstances, in particular, they did not establish whether the company actually paid wages and did not verify the legitimacy of applying penalty sanctions. The court pointed out the need for a more thorough examination of evidence, including turnover-balance statements and primary documents that may confirm or refute the tax authority’s position.

Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of circumstances.

Case No. 560/792/24 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Khmelnytskyi Oblast as unlawful regarding non-accrual and non-payment of wage indexation for the period 2013-2017.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that until July 19, 2022, the Labor Code of Ukraine did not limit the time limit for filing a lawsuit for wage recovery. The courts of previous instances erroneously applied the new version of Article 233 of the Labor Code, which came into effect after the emergence of disputed legal relations. The plaintiff had the right to apply to court without time limitations, as the events occurred before the legislative changes.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance.

Case No. 911/1755/22 (911/1068/23) dated 26/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of a simple bill of exchange as having no bill of exchange force, cancellation of bill protest and enforcement inscription.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The bill contains all necessary details and does not have formal defects
– The company’s director had the authority to sign the bill, as the charter did not contain restrictions
– The person who received the bill has the right to demand performance of obligations regardless of internal circumstances of bill issuance
– The only basis for depriving the bill of force is the presence of a formal defect

3. Court Decision: Maintain the previous court decisions and reject the claim of the company “Nova Tekhnolohiya”.

Important: The court clearly adheres to established practice regarding the protection of bill circulation and the rights of bona fide securities holders.

Case No. 873/144/24 dated 25/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for technical maintenance and repair of a vehicle based on an arbitration court decision.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The arbitration agreement between the parties is valid and correctly concluded
– The procedure for forming the arbitration court composition complies with the legislation
– The arbitration court legally considered the case despite martial law
– There are no legal grounds for canceling the arbitration court decision
– The arbitration court decision is subject to compulsory execution

3. Court Decision: Reject the appeal and issue a writ for compulsory execution of the arbitration court decision to recover 75,263 hryvnias 87 kopiykas of debt.Case No. 520/34126/23 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of the dispute – the legality of land tax accrual for the Derhachi District State Veterinary Medicine Hospital.

Main arguments of the court: First, local councils adopted decisions to exempt budget institutions fully maintained at the expense of state or local budgets from land tax. Second, the Derhachi District Veterinary Medicine Hospital is a non-profit budgetary organization financed from the State Budget of Ukraine. Third, the controlling authority incorrectly argued that the decision on the exemption must be made personally for a specific institution.

The court decided to leave the previous court decisions unchanged and reject the tax authority’s cassation appeal, thereby confirming the legality of the hospital’s exemption from land tax payment.

Case No. 559/1845/18 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute – a land plot and the legality of its transfer to ownership through a city council decision and a donation agreement.

The court was guided by the following key arguments: first, the appellate court previously canceled the first instance decision and satisfied the claim of MPP “Terenok”, but the Supreme Court canceled this appellate court decision and left the first instance decision in force. Second, since PERSON_2’s cassation appeal was satisfied, court costs for the cassation appeal must be recovered from MPP “Terenok”.

The court decided to recover from MPP “Terenok” in favor of PERSON_2 court fees for filing a cassation appeal in the amount of 10,572.00 UAH.

Case No. 524/3994/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute – declaring illegal the decision of the Executive Committee of the Kremenchuk City Council on the dismantling of a temporary structure for entrepreneurial activity.

The main arguments of the court are that the case was not subject to consideration under civil proceedings and should be considered in an administrative court. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice regarding the return of court fees, indicating that in the case of closing proceedings with transfer by jurisdiction, court fees are not refunded, as the case review actually continues in another court.

The court decided to refuse the Executive Committee of the Kremenchuk City Council the return of court fees and send the case to the Poltava District Administrative Court for further consideration.

Case No. 727/6730/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the rulings of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi and the Chernivtsi Appellate Court in criminal proceedings regarding PERSON_7.

Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The court believes that previous instances allowed procedural violations that could affect the objectivity and completeness of case consideration. A careful analysis of the proceedings showed the need to return the case for a new hearing to ensure comprehensive and impartial judicial proceedings.

Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled previous court rulings, and appointed a new hearing in the court of first instance.

Case No. 348/1781/21 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of the dispute: Prosecutor’s appeal of a court decision on releasing a person from serving a suspended sentence for theft.

Main arguments of the court:
1. The court believes that the appellate court inadequately substantiated the grounds for releasing the convicted person from a suspended sentence.
2. The court established that the local court used the same circumstances to mitigate the sentenceArticle 69 of the Criminal Code and release from serving the sentence under Article 75 of the Criminal Code.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the imposed punishment effectively left serious crimes unpunished, which does not correspond to the purpose of criminal proceedings.

Court decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the appellate court ruling and assign a new review in the appellate court.

Case No. 454/1808/24 dated 31/03/2025
Subject of dispute: PERSON_1’s lawsuit against the State Bureau of Investigations for compensation of moral damages in the amount of 1,000,000 UAH for allegedly illegal non-consideration of their criminal offense report.

Main arguments of the court: First, the plaintiff did not prove the fact of actual moral damage. Second, their rights were restored through the investigative judge’s ruling, which obliged entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, which occurred on July 5, 2022. Third, the mere fact of temporary delay in registering the report cannot automatically be considered grounds for recovering moral damages.

Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the previous court instances’ decision to reject the claim.

Case No. 620/18610/23 dated 03/04/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of dispute: The prosecutor filed a lawsuit to oblige the State Treasury Service Directorate to bring the radiation shelter to proper technical condition.

2. Main arguments of the court:
– The State Emergency Service and local state administrations do not have independent right to file such claims
– Legislation does not provide powers for the State Emergency Service to file claims about bringing protective structures to proper condition
– The prosecutor cannot replace the authority that should protect state interests if it does not want or cannot do so

3. Court decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court rulings unchanged.

Important: The court clearly adheres to the position that the prosecutor is not an alternative subject of court appeal instead of the authorized government body.

Case No. 580/4355/24 dated 03/04/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:

Subject of dispute: Challenging the resolution on imposing a fine on LLC “Tool Center” for allegedly creating obstacles during product characteristics inspection.

Main arguments of the court:
1. The product distributor provided information about the product’s origin and cannot bear full responsibility for the absence of technical documentation, which is the manufacturer’s obligation.
2. The plaintiff did not actually create obstacles for conducting the inspection, as they provided partial information and explanations.
3. The market surveillance body had the opportunity to identify the product manufacturer and present claims regarding the absence of necessary documents.

Court decision: Uphold previous court rulings and reject the cassation appeal of the Central Interregional Directorate of the State Labor Service.

Case No. 320/27109/23 dated 03/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on a fine for late registration of tax invoices during martial law.

2. Main arguments of the court:
– The taxpayer had the opportunity to register tax invoices despite martial law
– “COVID” moratorium provisions do not apply to the martial law period
– No evidence of impossibility to fulfill tax obligations
– Penalty sanctions were applied lawfully in accordance with current legislation

3. Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court rulings unchanged.

The court clearly adhered to the position that the taxpayer must fulfill theirObligations Even in Martial Law Conditions.

Case No. 910/12918/20 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Credit Obligations of JSC “Nikopol Ferroalloys” before JSC CB “PrivatBank” as Terminated.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court that JSC “Marhanets Mining and Processing Plant” did not prove the direct impact of the court decision on its rights and interests. The court clearly determined that to challenge a decision by a person not participating in the case, it is necessary to prove an obvious and unconditional connection between the decision and the rights of such a person, rather than just a probable impact.

Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal of JSC “Marhanets Mining and Processing Plant” unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate commercial court – unchanged.

Case No. 629/166/19 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the first instance court verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal sale of narcotic drugs).

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that during the judicial review, serious procedural violations were admitted, in particular, witness interrogation was conducted with technical problems, which made proper cross-examination impossible and complicated the implementation of defense party rights. Judges paid special attention to the fact that some witnesses were interrogated via telephone communication without proper identification, without explaining procedural rights and taking an oath.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, canceled the resolution of the appellate court, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.

Case No. 914/1619/24 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by the company “Center of Technical Expertise “Ukrexpert””.

The court carefully analyzed the cassation appeal and concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the plaintiff’s claims. The panel of judges drew attention to the fact that the submitted complaint did not contain convincing arguments that would indicate the unlawfulness of previous court decisions. The Supreme Court supported the position of lower courts, believing that the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision was made within its powers and in accordance with the legislation.

The court left previous court decisions unchanged and refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of the company “Ukrexpert”.

Case No. 906/512/23 dated 02/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a private executor regarding the arrest of funds and property of JSC “Zhytomyrgaz” in a case of gas debt collection.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– JSC “Zhytomyrgaz” is included in the register of enterprises for gas market debt settlement
– According to a special law, enforcement proceedings must be suspended
– Arrest of funds for accrued amounts (penalties, interest) is unlawful
– Part of the arrested funds (executor’s expenses) is subject to consideration in an administrative court

3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the complaint of JSC “Zhytomyrgaz”, canceling the arrest on part of the funds and suspending enforcement proceedings.

Peculiarity: The court clearly adhered to the position of priority of the special law on gas market settlement.

Case No. 380/30517/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges the procedure for calculating seniority allowance for the period from 2016 to 2018.

Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that until July 19, 2022, the Labor Code did not contain restrictions on the term for an employee to apply to court with a claim for recovering due wages. The court emphasized the need for clear differentiation of legal norms’ scope in timeand concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied labor legislation norms, which led to an erroneous conclusion about missing the deadline.

Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the appellate court’s resolution and send the case for a new review to the appellate administrative court.

Case No. 540/1641/19 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision regarding additional accrual of excise tax on wine materials.

Main Court Arguments:

1. During inventory, a discrepancy was found between accounting data and actual wine material balances, but the possibility of reclassification within the same product category was established.

2. The controlling authority did not prove the fact of actual wine material loss, but only recorded accounting inaccuracies.

3. The enterprise had the right to transfer champagne wine materials to table wines in the absence of a legislative prohibition on such actions, despite the lack of a decision from the industry tasting commission.

Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision on partial cancellation of the tax notification-decision, as the controlling authority did not prove the existence of actual excess losses of excisable goods.

Case No. 991/4164/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of assets (residential house and land plot) of a Marhanets City Council deputy as unjustified and recovery of their value in favor of the state.

Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_1, as a local council deputy, purchased real estate worth 2.9 million hryvnias, having declared legal income of only 641,992 hryvnias.
2. The difference between asset value and declared income is 2.258 million hryvnias, which exceeds the legally established criteria.
3. The respondent did not provide convincing evidence of the legal origin of funds for real estate purchase; specifically, a donation agreement from the mother was declared void due to lack of notarial certification.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decision on recognizing assets worth 2.258 million hryvnias as unjustified and recovering this amount in favor of the state.

Case No. 592/15122/19 dated 03/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Division of a residential house and land plot in shared partial ownership between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.

2. Main Court Arguments:
– It was established that PERSON_2 added an extension to their part of the house with a separate entrance and modified some premises
– The court decided to divide the house according to the 1st expert assessment option, which does not require significant reconstruction
– Due to changes in co-owners’ actual shares, the court ordered compensation:
* 68,029 hryvnias from PERSON_1 to PERSON_2 for increased house share
* 13,083.96 hryvnias from PERSON_2 to PERSON_1 for increased land plot share

3. Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution providing for property division and compensation recovery.

Case No. 480/1345/18 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Private Enterprise “Kryazh” challenges the transfer of land plots to private ownership of individuals on the territory of the Kamiano-Balkivskyi sand deposit, considering it a violation of its rights as a subsoil user.

Main Court Arguments:
1. At the time of land plot transfer in 2003, PE “Kryazh” did not yet exist (established in November 2003), therefore it could not have any rights to these plots.
2. The special permit for subsoil use was obtained by the enterprise only in December 2006, i.e., long after the land transfer.
3. The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence that the land plots were to be used for needsHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:

b, related to subsoil use.
4. The State, through its authorized bodies, did not raise claims regarding this land transfer for a long time.

Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of PE “Kryazh” unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous court instances to reject the claim.

Case No. 524/5877/21 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of joint shared ownership of non-residential premises, recovery of property, and cancellation of state registration of rights.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court partially satisfied the claim by recovering a non-residential premise of 8.3 sq.m from PERSON_3 and canceling the decision on state registration of ownership of this premise.
2. When distributing court expenses, the court took into account that the claim was partially satisfied (1/3 of the requirements), therefore proportionally reduced the court expenses.
3. The court recognized the plaintiff’s legal assistance expenses of 10,000 UAH as justified and recovered them from the defendant.

Court Decision: Partially satisfy PERSON_4’s application, recovering from PERSON_3 a court fee of 8,172 UAH and legal assistance expenses of 10,000 UAH, as well as reduce previously recovered court expenses in favor of PERSON_2.

Case No. 991/7682/21 dated 03/04/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:

1. Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_11, a judge accused of receiving an improper benefit of 150,000 US dollars for rendering a positive court decision in a criminal case.

2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Evidence shows that PERSON_11 indeed requested and received an improper benefit from PERSON_20 for rendering a court decision in favor of PERSON_21
– The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation and political persecution of the accused
– It was established that the accused’s actions did not contain elements of extortion but represented a request for an improper benefit

3. Court Decision: Recognize PERSON_11 guilty of committing a crime under Part 4 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentence him to 8 years and 6 months of imprisonment, with deprivation of the right to hold judicial positions for 3 years and confiscation of property.

Case No. 902/1198/23 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the registration of ownership of a non-residential premise of 11.7 sq.m located at: Koziatyn, Stusa St., 2.

Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PE “Sonechko-2017” legally acquired ownership of the premise back in 1995, confirmed by a purchase and sale agreement and a court decision from 2005.
2. Technical inaccuracies in inventory documents cannot refute the validity of the legal grounds for the Enterprise’s acquisition of ownership.
3. Canceling the registration would lead to unjustified termination of ownership that was acquired over 25 years ago.

Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions that rejected the claim of LLC “Karat” to cancel the registration of ownership of PE “Sonechko-2017”.

Case No. 911/3828/23 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of Dispute – recovery of monetary funds between Public Joint Stock Company “Centrenergo” and Limited Liability Company “Equives”.

The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court instances (Economic Court of Kyiv Oblast and Northern Commercial Court of Appeal) correctly assessed the evidence and adhered to procedural law norms. The panel of judges of the Supreme Court found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal, as the plaintiff’s arguments did not contain convincing evidence of the illegality of previous court decisions. The court took into account all circumstances of the case and established that the decisions of lower-standingSupreme Court found the decisions of lower courts to be lawful and substantiated.

The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint without satisfaction and the previous court decisions unchanged.

Case No. 120/2467/23 dated 03/04/2025
The case concerns challenging tax notifications-decisions issued by the Central Interregional Tax Administration for Work with Large Taxpayers to Private Joint Stock Company “Vinnytsia Oil and Fat Plant”.

The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the tax notifications-decisions were issued lawfully. The panel of judges took into account all provided evidence, including documents of the enterprise’s financial and economic activities. The court established that there are no grounds for canceling the challenged tax notifications-decisions, as they comply with current legislation and do not violate the taxpayer’s rights.

The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and denied satisfaction of the cassation complaint of the Central Interregional Tax Administration.

Case No. 758/10234/22 dated 01/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case about illegal acquisition, storage, and sale of particularly dangerous narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Main arguments of the court:
1. Evidence collected during the investigation convincingly demonstrates the defendant’s intent to sell narcotic substances, in particular: large volume of seized substances, method of packaging, presence of photographs of stash locations in the phone.
2. The court thoroughly analyzed the difference between Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, proving that in this case there was a purpose of sale, not personal consumption.
3. The imposed punishment is fair, taking into account the gravity of the crime and the convicted person’s personality.

Court decision: Leave the verdict unchanged, deny the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint.

Case No. 160/33691/24 dated 02/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the Main Tax Administration on cancellation of fuel storage license for PJSC “Northern Mining and Processing Plant”.

Main arguments of the court:

1. The court established that the license was canceled for non-payment of a fee of 780 UAH, while the Plaintiff proved the fact of timely payment of all necessary fees.

2. At the moment of license cancellation, the Plaintiff had 93,469 liters of fuel, which makes its storage impossible without the corresponding license.

3. Failure to take interim measures will lead to significant costs for the Plaintiff for moving or selling fuel, which is disproportionate to the reason for license cancellation.

Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, confirming the decisions of previous instances on suspension of the license cancellation order.

Case No. 914/1619/24 dated 03/04/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of the decision of the Western Interregional Territorial Subdivision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on violation of legislation on protection against unfair competition.

Main arguments of the court:

1. State Enterprise “Rivne ETC” has priority for using the commercial name since 1996.

2. LLC “Rivne ETC” used a similar commercial name without permission from the state enterprise, which could lead to confusion of their activities.

3. The term for the state enterprise to apply to the Antimonopoly Committee was not missed, as it learned about the violation on 23.01.2023.

Court decision: Leave the decisions of previous instances unchanged, refusing LLC “Ukrexpert” in invalidating the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision.