**Case No. 380/3258/23 dated April 3, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346545](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346545)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the order of the Lviv Customs regarding the application of a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand to an employee for inadequate control over the actions of subordinates.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the employee’s claim, based on the fact that the order to impose disciplinary liability does not contain all the necessary information about the elements of the disciplinary offense. In particular, the courts noted that the order does not specify which actions the employee committed unlawfully or did not commit, and the causal connection between his actions and the violations committed by subordinates was not proven. **** At the same time, the appellate court referred to the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which it is not enough to simply refer to the norms of legislation, it is necessary to provide justification for the application of these norms and the specific circumstances of the offense. The Supreme Court, however, did not agree with such conclusions, noting that the contested order contains sufficient justification for the grounds for disciplinary action, in particular, the essence of the offense is disclosed, there are references to the violated norms of law, and the choice of this particular type of sanction is justified. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should have verified the facts of violation of customs legislation by subordinates and whether they were held liable, and also establish a causal link between the actions of the manager and the violations of subordinates.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 420/1581/24 dated April 3, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346554](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346554)
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the plaintiff compensation for the loss of part of income due to the violation of the terms of payment of monetary allowance indexation.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute concerns the payment of compensation, which is a component of wages, therefore, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – LC) as amended at the time when the right to this compensation arose, must be applied to the disputed legal relations. **** The court noted that the appellate court mistakenly applied the wording of Article 233 of the LC, which came into force on July 19, 2022, since it has no retroactive effect and cannot be applied to legal relations that arose earlier. The court also indicated that the right to compensation arises regardless of the prior accrual and payment of indexation, but from the moment of delay in the payment of income.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.
instance.
**Case No. 440/8482/21 dated 04/03/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346565](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346565)
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Poltava City Council’s decision to extend the placement of temporary structures for conducting business activities, the effect of personal fixed-term land servitudes, and the validity period of location certificates for these structures owned by JSC “Poltava-bank.”
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of state registration of a land servitude is not an obstacle to resolving the issue of extending the placement of temporary structures, the effect of the servitude, and the location certificate. The court also noted that the city council was required to verify the compliance of the placement of temporary structures with the requirements of the law, in particular, the presence of agreement with the National Police, and to correct possible errors made during the issuance of permits. The court rejected arguments about missing the deadline for appealing to the court, considering that information about location certificates was not public and was discovered during criminal proceedings. The court also confirmed that the prosecutor had the right to appeal to the court to protect the interests of the territorial community.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left them unchanged in the remaining part.
**Case No. 620/9305/24 dated 04/03/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346534](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346534)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to draw up and submit lists for calculating additional remuneration to a serviceman for participation in hostilities.
2. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of direct participation in hostilities precisely on the contact line, and the provided certificate does not contain the necessary information provided for confirming the right to additional remuneration. The Supreme Court disagreed with such conclusions, noting that the courts did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, did not examine all available evidence in the aggregate, and did not take into account the position of the Supreme Court that a violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units does not deprive a serviceman of the right to remuneration. Also, the courts did not establish what tasks and where the plaintiff performed during the assignment, which is important for the correct resolution of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case.
**Case No. 440/8482/21 dated 04/03/2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346563](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126346563)
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the Poltava City Council regarding the extension of the placement of temporary structures for business activities.activity, the effect of the land easement, and the term of validity of the tie-in passports for JSC “Poltava-bank.”
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the Poltava City Council acted in violation of legal requirements, as it did not take into account the absence of approval from the National Police for the placement of temporary structures and did not verify the compliance of the area of the structures with the established restrictions. The court noted that even if violations are detected after the issuance of the permit, the city council is obliged to correct the error and bring the placement of structures into compliance with the law or refuse to extend the permit. The court did not agree that the absence of registration of the land easement is a basis for canceling the decision. The court also emphasized that a new legislative act applies to ongoing legal relations from the moment it comes into force, and therefore, the requirements for the area of temporary structures established later are valid.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances but leaving them unchanged in other parts.
Case No. 752/25428/20 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of appellate proceedings on the complaint of LLC “IBC “Dniprobud” against the decision of the court of first instance on recognizing property rights to an unfinished construction object for an individual.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly closed the appellate proceedings, as the decision of the court of first instance directly affects the rights and obligations of LLC “IBC “Dniprobud” as the construction client, considering the contractual relations between LLC “IBC “Dniprobud” and LLC “Via-Avto” regarding the construction of the object. The court emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the appellate complaint of LLC “IBC “Dniprobud” and did not take into account the circumstances regarding the removal of LLC “Via-Avto” from performing the functions of the construction client. The court deviated from the previous position, according to which it was necessary to ascertain whether the decision of the court of first instance violates the rights and interests of the person who filed the appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate instance.
Case No. 160/12974/22 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Agro KMR” of tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk Region regarding the reduction of the amount of the negative value of the VAT amount and the increase of the amount of the monetary obligation for VAT.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the claim, based on the fact that the crop failure was caused by circumstancof irresistible force, and the costs of growing them are part of the business activity; as for LLC “Tryvko Biofertilizers Plant”, previous court decisions recognized the tax assessment notices regarding this counterparty as unlawful; and that obtaining information and consulting services from LLC “Agro-Holding MC” led to an increase in the company’s land bank. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with these conclusions, emphasizing the need to investigate the reality of business transactions, the good faith of the taxpayer, and the compliance of primary documents with the requirements of the law. The court of cassation indicated that the courts of previous instances did not investigate all the circumstances provided by the tax authority and did not properly assess the primary documents, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 538/2563/23 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The court decided on the application of compulsory medical measures to a person who committed a socially dangerous act in a state of insanity.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court, based on the evidence, in particular, the testimonies of victims and witnesses, the conclusions of examinations (medical, psychiatric, examination of petroleum products), concluded that PERSON_6 committed a socially dangerous act under Article 296 part 4 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hooliganism with the use of a pre-prepared object for causing bodily harm). The court also took into account the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination, according to which PERSON_6 suffered from a chronic mental disorder that made it impossible for him to realize his actions. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, noting that the very fact of committing a socially dangerous act under the established circumstances is not disputed. The court of cassation emphasized that when considering such cases, the question of guilt is not raised, but it concerns the commission of a socially dangerous act by an insane person.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the court of appeal regarding the application to PERSON_6 of compulsory medical measures in the form of hospitalization to a psychiatric care facility with strict supervision.
Case No. 816/2223/15 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The enterprise appealed against the tax assessment notice, which increased the amount of tax liability for income tax.
value added.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court emphasized that to confirm the right to a tax credit, the actual performance of business operations, confirmed by proper primary documents, is important. The court noted that the tax authority did not prove the absence of a business purpose in the company’s transactions with counterparties or its awareness of possible violations by these counterparties. In addition, the court took into account that the presence or absence of individual documents, as well as deficiencies in their execution, cannot be the basis for concluding that there are no business operations if there are other data on changes in the company’s assets and liabilities. The court also took into account the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the taxpayer is not responsible for deficiencies in the activities of counterparties if he did not enter false information in the primary documents.
3. **Decision of the court:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances in favor of the taxpayer remained unchanged.
**Case No. 620/14727/23 dated 04/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Central Department of the State Executive Service to remove the arrest from the real estate of an individual, imposed as part of enforcement proceedings on the basis of an executive inscription of a notary.
2. The courts of previous instances closed the proceedings, considering that the dispute is not public-legal, since it concerns the protection of the plaintiff’s civil rights regarding property encumbered with arrest, and should be considered in the order of civil proceedings, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding claims for the removal of arrest from property based on ownership. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, indicating that jurisdiction depends on the type of executive document: if the executive document was not issued by the court (for example, an executive inscription of a notary), the dispute regarding the actions of the executive service is subject to consideration in the administrative court. The Supreme Court noted that the refusal of a state executor to remove the arrest from the debtor’s property in enforcement proceedings opened for the compulsory execution of an executive inscription of a notary can be appealed by the debtor to the administrative court. The Supreme Court deviated from the practice referred to by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
**Case No. 509/3502/20 dated 04/02/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements from the defendants jointly and severally, since the funds were allegedly received by one of the defendants in marriage and were to be used in the interests of the family.
2. The court of cassation
the court of appeal held that the appellate court had not established important circumstances, namely: whether the borrowed funds were actually used in the interests of the family, considering that the marital relationship between the defendants had been terminated even before the conclusion of the loan agreements. Also, the court did not take into account the lack of evidence of the consent of one of the spouses to the conclusion of the loan agreements and did not determine the amount of debt that corresponds to the share of each of the heirs in the inheritance, and also did not indicate that the recovery is carried out within the value of the property received by inheritance. The court noted that the mere fact that the purpose of the loan is indicated in the loan agreements cannot unconditionally indicate that the loan was spent on the reconstruction of real estate objects. Given this, the Supreme Court emphasized that the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of grounds for joint liability of the spouses are premature.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision in the part of the claims to the heirs and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 757/25274/23-ц dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was compensation for property damage caused to “SK-Monolith” LLC as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.
2. The court partially satisfied the claims, recovering property damage from the state of the Russian Federation represented by the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, since the fact of the destruction of the plaintiff’s property as a result of the missile strike was proven. The court refused to satisfy the claims against the president of the Russian Federation Putin, other individuals and a political party, since their direct guilt in causing damage to this particular plaintiff was not proven. The court also noted that the claim for recovery of the defendants’ property located on the territory of the Kingdom of Spain is unspecific and unfounded.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “SK-Monolith” LLC, and left the decision of the court of first instance in the appealed part and the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 369/11432/23 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for losses related to improper performance of a preliminary apartment sale agreement.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court mistakenly overturned the decision of the court of first instance and referred the case to the commercial court, since the bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant were opened after the decision of the court of first instance. At the time the plaintiff applied to the court and at the time the court of first instance made its decision, bankruptcy proceedings had not been initiated, and therefore there were no grounds for applying the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedure regardingto the commercial court. The cassation court referred to its previous practice, which stated that the jurisdiction of the dispute is determined at the time of opening proceedings in the case in the court of first instance, and the appellate court must verify the legality of the decision of the court of first instance within the circumstances that existed at the time of the consideration of the case by that court.
4. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 212/7103/23 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of JSC “Kryvorizka Teplocentral” to cease charging for centralized heating in the apartment, the owner of which received permission to disconnect from these networks.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, as the procedure for disconnecting the apartment from the centralized heating network was not completed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not take into account the fact of the plaintiff’s death before the opening of appellate proceedings and did not resolve the issue of involving legal successors or closing the proceedings, which is a violation of procedural law. The cassation court noted that procedural succession is possible only if the person’s death occurred after applying to the court and opening proceedings in the case, otherwise it contradicts the principles of civil proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, reversed the decision of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 752/13644/22 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the termination of the mortgage on property rights arising from the mortgage agreement, due to the full performance of obligations under the loan agreement.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, based on the fact that the parties did not agree on the procedure for paying interest for the use of the loan, which makes the contract unexecuted in this part, and therefore the obligation to pay interest did not arise, but the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that the parties in the contract stipulated the procedure for calculating and paying interest, and the plaintiff admitted that the interest was not paid by him, and therefore there is no reason to consider the obligation terminated. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court, as the appellate court did not assess the decision of another court, which the plaintiff referred to, which established circumstances important for the consideration of this case, which is a violation of procedural rules.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 914/2711/22 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from SE “Lviv State Plant “Lorta” of penalty and fine for violation of the terms of performance of work under a state contract with the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.
2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the parties agreed on the terms of performance of work under the contract, which the defendant violated, and did not provide evidence of force majeure circumstances during the period of performance of work. The court also noted that it recalculated the amounts of penalties based on the final contract price for the actually performed work, and not on the estimated price, which does not constitute a change in the subject of the claim. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the need to reduce the penalties, as the defendant’s difficult financial situation was not proven. The court rejected the arguments about not taking into account additional explanations, as the defendant tried to provide evidence that did not exist at the time the first instance court made its decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/7746/20 dated 04/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the return of the appeal of “Vostoktranslogistika” LLC in the case of debt collection under a loan agreement and recognition as invalid of the decision on the nullity of the agreement.
2. The appellate court returned the appeal because “Vostoktranslogistika” LLC did not eliminate the deficiencies specified in the court’s ruling, namely, did not provide evidence of registration of an electronic cabinet in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS). The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not consider the issue of restoring the term for eliminating deficiencies, although “Vostoktranslogistika” LLC filed a corresponding motion in which it informed about the registration of an electronic cabinet and requested to restore the missed term. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court must take into account the content of the motion and the actions of the party to the case, avoiding excessive formalism.
3.
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for continued consideration, obligating the appellate court to consider LLC “Vostoktranslogistics”‘s motion to reinstate the term for rectifying deficiencies in the appeal.
Case No. 913/117/24 dated 04/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the right of claim and recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court dismissed the claim without consideration, as an arbitration agreement had been concluded between the bank and the company, according to which all disputes should be resolved in the Arbitration Court at the Association “Slobozhanska Perspektyva,” and the company objected to the case being heard in the commercial court. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had not proven the impossibility of fulfilling the arbitration agreement, and the absence of a specific address of the arbitration court is not a basis for invalidating the agreement, since the parties clearly defined the name of the arbitration court. In addition, the court referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the inadmissibility of interference by state courts in the jurisdiction of arbitration courts if the parties have voluntarily agreed to such a method of resolving disputes.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 908/1734/22 dated 04/03/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the validity of the tax authority’s claims against the bankrupt enterprise regarding the payment of value-added tax and penalties assessed after the opening of the liquidation procedure.
2. The court, in rejecting the tax authority’s claims, proceeded from the fact that, according to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, from the moment the debtor is declared bankrupt and the liquidation procedure is opened, it does not incur any additional obligations, including the payment of taxes and fees. Since the tax liability and penalties were assessed for the period after the enterprise was declared bankrupt, they cannot be considered current creditor claims and are not subject to satisfaction within the liquidation procedure. The court also noted that the tax authority’s reference to conducting an audit and sending tax notices-decisions does not change the fact that the obligations arose after bankruptcy.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the lower courts, refusing the tax authority to satisfy its monetary claims against the bankrupt enterprise.
Case No. 908/3774/23 dated 04/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a limited liability company of unjustly acquired funds for the use of a land plot wit
