Case No. 759/5948/23 dated April 1, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the appeal of the accused against the decision of the court of first instance regarding a preventive measure in the form of bail and imposed obligations.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that the decision of the court of first instance on upholding the preventive measure in the form of bail and the imposition of obligations is not subject to appeal separately from the decision on the merits of the case, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 392 and 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the appellate court judge rightfully refused to open appellate proceedings, as the appeal was filed against a court decision that is not subject to appeal. The court of cassation also indicated that the cassation court does not review arguments regarding the decision of the court of first instance, as this is not the subject of cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 707/472/18 dated March 27, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the appellate court to close the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, who was convicted of tax evasion and forgery of documents.
2. The appellate court closed the criminal proceedings, motivating it by the fact that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of PERSON_6 in committing the crimes, and the conclusions of the court of first instance are not supported by proper evidence. The appellate court noted that the expert’s opinion is conditional, since the expenses of the accused were not taken into account, and the obligation to register as a VAT payer arises from net, not gross, income. Also, the appellate court took into account the decisions of the administrative court, which признали визнали протиправними податкові повідомлення-рішення, and the letter from the tax authority on the absence of debt from PERSON_6, which, in the court’s opinion, indicates the absence of intent to evade taxes. **** The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, stating that the decisions of administrative courts do not have preclusive effect in criminal proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance due to существенных violations of the criminal procedural law.
Case No. 917/2072/23 dated April 3, 2025
Greetings! Here is a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in case No. 917/2072/23:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the appeal against the decision of the appellate court and the additional decision of the commercial court regarding the partial satisfaction of the application for the recovery of expenses for legal assistance of a lawyer.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court of cassation noted
that failure to submit a preliminary calculation of court costs is not an unconditional ground for refusing reimbursement of legal aid expenses.
* The court took into account the scope and nature of the services provided by the attorney, the principles of proportionality and reasonableness of court costs, as well as the criteria for the reality of attorney’s fees. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding partial satisfaction of the claims, as some of the attorney’s services were deemed unreasonable for reimbursement (e.g., separate review of documents, preparation of a motion to renew the term for submitting a response, expenses for preparing a motion for the distribution of court costs).
* The court also noted that the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance should not lead to excessive enrichment of the party in whose favor such expenses are recovered.
* The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the courts did not take into account the previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, since in each case, decisions are made based on specific circumstances and evidence.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railways” without satisfaction, and the постанову [resolution] of the appellate court and the additional decision of the commercial court – without changes.
Case No. 754/15594/23 dated 04/07/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries).
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave unchanged the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the prosecutor’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 243/1538/23 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 4 of Article 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (insubordination).
2. Unfortunately, the provided operative part of the court decision does not contain any arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, so I cannot provide them.
3. The Supreme Court left unchanged the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 910/9366/22 dated 04/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Atem Group” LLC in favor of “GAZ-MDS” LLC of debt under a natural gas supply agreement.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that disagreements arose between the parties regarding the volume of gas consumed, and these disagreements were resolved in another court case, where the volume of gas consumed by “Atem Group” LLC was established. Based on this, the appellate court established that “Atem Group” LLC carried out оп [op…].
full for gas, and therefore there are no grounds for recovery of the principal debt, 3% per annum, inflation losses and penalties. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appellant’s reference to paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the conclusions of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the appellant concern legal relations that are not similar to those considered in this case. The court of cassation also did not agree with the appellant’s arguments that the court of appeal violated the provisions of part 9 of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the distribution of court costs.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the claim of “GAS-MDS” LLC.
Case No. 921/298/24 dated 04/08/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 41,407,766.88 between “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC and “Ternopilgaz” PJSC.
2. The text of the court decision provided does not indicate the court’s arguments. The decision contains only the introductory and operative parts, so it is impossible to determine which arguments the court used to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC and uphold the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to recover the penalty. To understand the logic of the court, it is necessary to analyze the full text of the court decision, which contains the reasoning part.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” LLC and to leave the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 875/383/23 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the arbitral tribunal’s decision to recover penalties from the farm enterprise in favor of the limited liability company for violation of the supply contract.
2. The court overturned the decision of the arbitral tribunal because it found that the case was not subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, because there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, since the supply contract containing the arbitration clause was not signed by an authorized person of the farm enterprise, as confirmed by the expert opinions and the court decision in another case. The court noted that when deciding on the cancellation of the decision of the arbitral tribunal, the commercial court simultaneously decides on the validity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement if the relevant arguments are made by the party, referring to the practice of the Supreme Court. In addition, the court took into account that the farm enterprise was located in the zone of hostilities and occupation, which made it difficult to apply to the court in a timely manner, and renewed the term for appealing the decision of the arbitral tribunal.
3. The court upheld the appellate court’s decision to grant the farm enterprise’s application and overturn the arbitral tribunal’s decision.
**Case No. 160/10118/24 dated April 4, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the state registrar to refuse the cancellation of the entry on the right of ownership of real estate in the State Register of Real Rights.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the dispute is public-law, since it arose between the enterprise and the state registrar, who exercised владні управлінські functions, and concerns the legality of the decision to refuse to carry out registration actions. The court noted that the subject of verification is precisely the legality of the decision of the subject of владні повноваження, and not the issue of real law. The previous court instances mistakenly believed that the dispute should be resolved in the order of civil procedure, since it allegedly concerns civil rights to real estate.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
**Case No. 320/1199/19 dated March 31, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) and the resolution of civil claims for compensation for moral damage.
2. The court of cassation, leaving the court decisions mostly unchanged, noted the following: the courts of previous instances carefully checked all the arguments of the parties and gave them proper assessment, the conclusion about the guilt of the person is based on a set of proper and admissible evidence, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is observed, formal shortcomings in the restored materials of the criminal proceedings did not affect the rights of the convicted person, the increase in the amount of compensation for moral damage does not worsen the position of the convicted person in the context of criminal proceedings. At the same time, the court of cassation, deviating from its previous position, indicated that every person whose right is violated and who has actually suffered damage has the right to compensation for moral damage, and it is unreasonable to limit the circle of subjects who have the right to compensation for moral damage only to those referred to in Part 2 of Article 1168 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and therefore the appellate court unreasonably refused to satisfy the claim for compensation for moral damage to the injured person.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defender unsatisfied, partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the representative of the injured person, overturned the ruling of the appellate court in the part of resolving the civil claim of the injured person for compensation for moral damage, and ordered a new consideration in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 906/243/24 dated April 2, 2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor applied to the court with a demand to recover land plots from a private enterprise in favor of the territorial community, since the enterprise illegally acquired ownership of them, not
having legal succession from the collective agricultural enterprise.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court agreed with the prosecutor, stating that for the recognition of legal succession, formal signs alone, such as mentioning legal succession in the charter or identifying the EDRPOU code, are not sufficient; it is necessary to establish the continuity of membership of former participants of the collective agricultural enterprise in the newly created enterprise. Since the defendant did not prove that the members of the former CAP became participants in his enterprise, he did not acquire ownership of the land lawfully. The court also emphasized that the acquisition of private ownership of land that belonged to the former CAP and should have passed into the ownership of the territorial community violates the interests of the community and is a basis for claiming these lands. The court also noted that the local self-government body timely appealed to the court, as the claim was filed in compliance with the statute of limitations.
The court departed from the formal approach to determining legal succession, which was applied earlier, emphasizing the importance of continuity of membership.
3. **Decision of the court:** The court dismissed the enterprise’s cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of previous instances to claim the disputed land plots in favor of the territorial community.
Case No. 645/6817/23 dated 04/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, motivating it by the fact that the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release the person from serving the sentence on probation, considering the public danger of the crime committed under martial law and general mobilization, as well as the fact that the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine would not contribute to the correction of the convict and the prevention of new crimes. The court also emphasized that the appellate court duly took into account the data on the identity of the convict and the circumstances mitigating the punishment, and reasonably concluded that it was impossible to apply Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on the imposition of a lighter punishment than provided by law. The decision of the appellate court complies with the requirements of Articles 50, 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the imposed punishment is fair, necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convict and the prevention of new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s verdict remained unchanged.
Case No. 727/6730/24 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing the criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injury) due to the victim’s refusal to prosecute in the form of private prosecution, when the crimeThe crime was committed within the family.
3. The court of cassation emphasized that, according to paragraph 7 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, criminal proceedings cannot be closed if they are related to domestic violence, despite the victim’s withdrawal of the charges. The court took into account that, according to the indictment, the actions of PERSON_7 were qualified as intentional infliction of minor bodily injuries to his mother, and this was recognized as an aggravating circumstance, since the crime was committed in family relations. **** The court referred to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, that a criminal offense related to domestic violence should be considered any criminal offense, the circumstances of the commission of which indicate the presence in the act of at least one of the elements (signs) listed in Article 1 of Law No. 2229-VIII, regardless of whether they are indicated in the incriminated article (part of the article) of the Criminal Code as signs of the main or qualified elements of a criminal offense.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 925/604/24 dated 04/02/2025
The tenant, a farm enterprise, is suing the city council with a demand to recognize the land lease agreement as concluded for a new term, as it believes it has a preferential right to do so.
The court of cassation emphasized that the tenant properly notified the landlord of its intention to conclude a lease agreement for a new term, attached a draft agreement, and the case file does not contain evidence that the city council notified the tenant of the impossibility of reaching an agreement on the rent or other terms of the agreement. Also, the court noted that the land user is a farm enterprise, for which the land is the main means of production and an object of state support. The court also noted that the inaction of the landlord regarding negotiations and agreeing on essential terms is a violation of the tenant’s rights. **** The court departed from the previous position, according to which a decision of the local self-government body is mandatory for the renewal of the lease agreement.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of the farm enterprise, recognizing the lease agreement as concluded for a new term.
Case No. 645/489/24 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to uphold the verdict of the local court, by which PERSON_6 was released from serving the sentence with probation based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of the criminal procedure law, in particular, did not properly verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code, and did not take into account the severity of the crimes committed.
circumstances of their commission under martial law for the purpose of enrichment, as well as the person’s prior conviction for similar crimes. The appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments, who stated that the accused does not work anywhere, does not engage in socially useful work, but purposefully seeks out and repairs firearms, which during martial law he sells together with ammunition for the purpose of personal enrichment. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court, when making a decision, should have taken into account all the circumstances in their interrelationship and assessed whether there are grounds to believe that the person’s correction is possible without serving a sentence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 462/3318/22 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of releasing a person from criminal liability due to reconciliation with the victim.
2. The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance and released PERSON_6 from criminal liability on the basis of Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, considering that he had reconciled with the victim. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with such a decision, indicating that Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of release from criminal liability only in the case of committing a criminal offense or a careless minor crime. Since PERSON_6 was accused of committing an intentional crime under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the appellate court incorrectly applied the law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 927/1595/23 dated 04/08/2025
Greetings! Here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as we discussed:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the decisions of the general meeting of the Joint-Stock Company “Operator of the Gas Distribution System “Chernihivgaz”.
2. The Supreme Court refused to transfer the case for consideration by the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court. The court closed the cassation proceedings in the part of the appeal on the basis provided for in paragraph 3 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, probably due to the absence of an exclusive legal problem that needs to be resolved. In another part, where the grounds provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (violation of substantive or procedural law) were stated, the cassation appeal was dismissed, which indicates the absence of such violations that would affect the legality and validity of the decisions of previous courts. In fact, the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Chernihiv Oblast and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, that is, refused to satisfy the claim of PJSC “GAZTEK”.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing to significant violations of the criminal procedural law, namely: the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal regarding the incompleteness of the judicial review and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case; unreasonably refused to re-examine the evidence, although it had to create conditions for this in order to ensure the realization of the right of the prosecution to appeal; did not check whether the acquittal was based on proper motives. The court noted that the appellate court actually reproduced the content of the verdict, without convincingly refuting the arguments of the appeal, which does not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 522/12635/24 dated 03/31/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return of the appeal to suspect PERSON_7, who challenged the extension of his detention.
2. The court based its decision on the fact that, in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and criminal procedural law, proceedings are conducted in the state language, and complaints to the court must be written in Ukrainian or with a translation into it. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presentation of a complaint in a non-state language makes its consideration impossible, and the court has no obligation to involve an interpreter to translate a complaint submitted in a non-state language. The court also referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court, in particular, the resolution of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of September 19, 2022, and the decision of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of December 06, 2024, where similar issues were already considered.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_7 without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 916/1530/24 dated 04/03/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for consumed natural gas and the obligation to write off accounts payable.
2. The court refused to satisfy Naftogaz’s claim for debt collection, based on the fact that Bona Vita-DK is the manager of an apartment building and acts in the interests of the residents, and the consumed gas is used for their household needs; considering this, the cost of gas should not exceed the established limit, which was paid. The court also granted the counterclaim, obliging Naftogaz to write off the debt that exceeds the cost of gas purchased at the established price, referring to the Law
Regarding the specifics of regulation of relations in the natural gas market and in the field of heat supply during martial law.” The court took into account that at the time of entry into force of this Law, “Bona Vita-DK” had arrears that are subject to write-off.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing “Naftogaz” in the claim and obliging to write off part of the debt of “Bona Vita-DK”.
**Case No. 921/238/24 dated April 3, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery from PrJSC “Ternopilmiskgaz” in favor of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of debt under the natural gas sale and purchase agreement, as well as penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court regarding the reduction of the amount of the penalty, noting that the courts have the right to reduce the amount of penalties if they are excessively high compared to the creditor’s losses. At the same time, the courts must take into account the degree of fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor, the financial condition of the parties, and other interests of the parties that deserve attention. The court also took into account that PrJSC “Ternopilmiskgaz” is a critical infrastructure enterprise, and the recovery of excessive penalties may negatively affect its activities. Also, the court noted that the reduction of the amount of penalty is the right of the court and depends solely on the specific circumstances of each case established by the court as a result of a legal assessment of the disputed legal relations and the evidence submitted by the parties, which they refer to as the basis of their claims or objections.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate economic court.
**Case No. 733/1526/19 dated April 1, 2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The convicted person appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, considering them illegal and unfounded.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The Supreme Court found violations of the norms of the criminal procedural law by the appellate court.
* The appellate court did not fully verify the arguments of the defense appeal.
* The court of cassation pointed out the need for a thorough verification of all the circumstances of the case by the appellate court.
* The existence of grounds for keeping a person in custody must be properly substantiated.
* The court also took into account the arguments of the defender’s cassation appeal.
3. **Decision of the court:** The defender’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the decision of the appellate court was canceled, and a new hearing was scheduled in the appellate instance, and the convicted person was released from custody.
**Case No. 916/5167/24 dated April 8, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is securing the claim before filing a statement of claim, in which JSC “Odesa Port Plant” asks to prohibit SE “Ukrinteenergo” and JSC “DTEK Odesa Electric Networks” from terminating or restricting electricity supply.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the courts had not justified the adequacy and proportionality of the interim measures taken in relation to the stated claims, in particular, their compliance and interrelation, as well as the correlation of the consequences of the measures taken with the rights and obligations of other persons. The court pointed out that securing the claim by prohibiting the termination of electricity supply leads to interference in the economic activity of SE “Ukrinterenergo” and violates the balance of interests of the parties. In addition, the chosen method of protection is identical to satisfying future claims, which is inconsistent with the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC). The Court also reminded that it is not possible to prohibit parties from terminating contractual relations, as this is guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, referring to previous resolutions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court of cassation instance decided to overturn the decisions of the previous courts and deny the application of JSC “Odesa Port Plant” for securing the claim.
**Case No. 569/10652/20 dated 07/04/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide) was considered.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The operative part of the resolution does not contain the arguments that the court was guided by. However, considering that the decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged, it can be assumed that the Supreme Court agreed with their conclusions regarding the proof of the convict’s guilt, the correctness of the qualification of his actions, and the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedural law that could affect the legality and validity of court decisions.
3. **Decision of the court:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
**Case No. 910/2697/24 dated 08/04/2025**
Greetings! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the obligation to perform certain actions, initiated by LLC “City for People Kyiv” against LLC “Kyiv Energy Services” and PJSC “DTEK Kyiv Electric Networks”.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings, opened on the basis of paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, since LLC “City for People Kyiv” did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims in this part. Regarding the ground provided for in paragraph 4 of the second part of Article 287 of the CPC of Ukraine, the court noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the norms of material
and procedural law. The court of cassation did not find any violations of the norms of procedural law that would lead to an incorrect resolution of the dispute, and did not establish the need to deviate from the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations, set forth in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “City for People Kyiv” LLC without satisfaction, and left the decision of the Economic Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/2026/24 dated 03/19/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a private enterprise in favor of a limited liability company of the amount of advance payment (advance) in connection with the termination of the contract for the provision of Due Diligence services.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, noting that the courts did not establish important circumstances, namely: whether the customer provided a task for the execution of the contract, what information necessary for the provision of services the contractor received, what volume of services was provided at the time of termination of the contract, and whether the contractor started performing new tasks after receiving the notice of termination of the contract. Also, the court indicated that the previous instances did not apply Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the return of unjustifiably acquired property in connection with the termination of the contract. The court noted that the ongoing provision of services after the termination of the contract may indicate bad faith on the part of the contractor.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/15903/23 dated 04/03/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the apartment sale agreement concluded between “Transproekt” LLC and PERSON_2, a former participant of “Transproekt” LLC, on the grounds that this agreement was concluded in order to avoid settlement with the plaintiff, as a former participant of the company.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of previous courts, noted that the courts did not take into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of challenging fraudulent transactions by a person whose property interests are violated. Also, the courts did not establish the fact that defendant-1 has outstanding debts to the plaintiff, did not investigate whether defendant-1 evades paying them by concluding the disputed agreement, whether the property was alienated at an understated value, and whether the debtor has other property to pay off obligations. The Supreme Court indicated that a participant who has withdrawn from the company retains an interest in the solvency of the company until full settlement with him.
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. 916/2745/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject matter of the dispute: Recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
The court partially granted the application, taking into account that although the plaintiff provided evidence of expenses for legal assistance, these expenses must be real, justified and meet the criterion of reasonable necessity. The court noted that the form of the fee was fixed, so the plaintiff is not obliged to detail the time spent by the lawyer, but the defendant proved the disproportionality of the claimed expenses. The court took into account the consistency of the plaintiff’s legal position, the absence of changes in regulatory legal regulation, and the lawyer’s familiarity with all the details of the case, which did not require a significant amount of work in preparing for the cassation review.
The court ruled to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 20,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 754/8422/18 dated 04/02/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of an acquittal regarding a person accused of official negligence, which allegedly caused damage to the territorial community during the reconstruction of the bicycle route.
2. The court, assessing the evidence, in particular the conclusions of expert examinations, decided that the prosecution did not prove the existence in the actions of the accused of the elements of a crime under Part 2 of Art. 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the infliction of damage to state interests has not been confirmed; the court took into account the testimony of the accused, the conclusions of a comprehensive forensic construction-technical and economic examination, which established the conformity of the performed works to the acceptance certificates, and also did not establish the infliction of damage to state interests. The court took into account that at the time of the construction works, there was no regulatory regulation for bicycle paths, and norms different from those applied by the expert in the conclusion of 06/19/2017 were applied to the construction of the “bicycle route” object. The court also noted that some shortcomings in the technical fixation of the trial did not affect the validity of the acquittal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/9924/19 dated 04/08/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of ordinary registered shares from someone else’s illegal possession.
The Supreme Court decided to overturn the appellate court’s decision, motivating this by the need for a retrial of the case by the appellate court. In fact, the cassation court pointed out certain shortcomings or unconsidered circumstances that should be investigated by the appellate court more thoroughly. At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the petition to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that
