[Case No. 200/3223/20-а dated 08/04/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126453857)
Good day! Let’s consider this case in more detail.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices issued by the tax authority to PJSC “Novokramatorskyi Machine-Building Plant”.
2. In this case, the courts of previous instances sided with the taxpayer, recognizing the tax assessment notices as unlawful and canceling them. The tax authority, disagreeing with this, filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case materials, agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and therefore there are no grounds for canceling their decisions. In particular, the courts of previous instances established that the tax authority did not prove the taxpayer’s violation of tax legislation with proper evidence. Also, the courts took into account the specifics of the enterprise’s activities and the economic justification of its business operations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
[Case No. 320/3570/22 dated 08/04/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126453747)
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the State Budget of Ukraine in favor of LLC “REGIONPRODUCT” of debt for VAT refund for April and May 2008, as well as penalties accrued on this debt.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly decided that the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv Oblast (MD STS) did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance on the renewal of the term for appealing to the court, therefore it is impossible to verify the arguments about the missed deadline. In fact, the MD STS’s appeal contained objections to this decision, and the appellate court had to consider them. The panel of judges noted that the CAS of Ukraine does not require a separate appeal of the decision on the renewal of the term, but it is sufficient to state objections in the appeal against the court’s decision. Since the appellate court did not properly assess these arguments, this led to an incomplete appellate review. Because of this, the Supreme Court cannot now decide on the issue of compliance with the terms of appeal to the court and the validity of the reasons for their omission, since this issue has not yet been properly considered by the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the same court.
[Case No. 320/31367/23 dated 08/04/2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126453793)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the order of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine on the accrual of penalties to JSC “Kharkiv SRDPTI “Energoproject” for the late payment of dividends to the state budget.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts, which refused to open proceedings in the case, arguing that the dispute is of a public law nature and is subject to consideration under the rules of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, in calculating the penalty for late payment of dividends, acted as a subject of power, performing functions for the implementation of state policy in the field of management of state property. The court emphasized that the disputed order is an individual act that creates obligations for a separate entity – Kharkiv Research and Design Institute “Energoproekt” JSC, and therefore the case should be considered in an administrative court. The court also pointed out that the lower courts did not take into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, as stated in the decision of July 26, 2022, in case No. 640/9680/19, which stated that the order of the Ministry of Economy on the accrual of penalties to a business entity meets the criteria of an individual act.
3. The court ruled to overturn the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal, and to send the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 320/18202/24 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax service’s decisions refusing to register tax invoices and the requirement to oblige the tax service to register them.
2. The court of cassation noted that the court of first instance mistakenly returned the statement of claim in full, as part of the claims were filed within the established deadlines. The court emphasized that upon receipt of an administrative claim, especially with multiple claims, the court is obliged to check the compliance with the deadlines for appealing to the court for each claim separately and make decisions accordingly. Returning the claim in full due to missing the deadline for some claims, in the presence of claims filed on time, is excessive formalism and restricts the right to a fair trial. Also, the court drew attention to the fact that the court of first instance did not give the plaintiff the opportunity to clarify the claims, having discovered inaccuracies in the documents. In addition, the decision to return the claim was made after a significant period of time after the expiration of the deadline for eliminating the deficiencies, which deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to re-apply to the court within the established deadline.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 160/11819/23 dated 04/08/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Imperia Grandis LLC of the tax notification-decision of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region regarding the accrual of penalties.
penalties for violating the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* The taxpayer is exempt from liability for late registration of tax invoices during the moratorium period introduced by paragraph 52-1 of subsection 10 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine, namely from March 1, 2020, to May 26, 2022.
* If tax invoices are drawn up by the taxpayer in the period from February 1 to May 31, 2022, and registered in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices with violation of the term after July 15, 2022, the controlling body has grounds for applying penalties.
* Law No. 2876-IX, which supplemented the Tax Code with paragraphs 89 and 90 regarding the reduction of penalties for the period of martial law, does not have retroactive effect, as it does not contain a direct indication of this.
* The liability established by paragraph 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine applies for violation by VAT payers of the deadline provided for in paragraph 89 of this section, that is, it is directly related to the increased terms of registration of tax invoices.
* The determining criterion for resolving the issue of liability for late registration of tax invoices after the abolition of moratoriums is the ability of the payer to fulfill its obligations, and all payers should have the same conditions to avoid liability by registering tax invoices in the appropriate transition period – until July 15, 2022.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims of LLC “Imperiya Grandis” and refused to satisfy the claim in this part.
**Case No. 903/43/22 dated 04/01/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of joint damages from the defendants, who, according to the plaintiff, caused losses to the bank by their actions.
2. The court of cassation considered cassation appeals against the decision to leave the claim without consideration in the part of one of the defendants who died. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, granted the application of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals to leave the claim without consideration regarding the deceased defendant, citing the fact that the plaintiff has an absolute right to such an application before the start of the case on the merits. The court of cassation emphasized that the principle of dispositiveness in the economic process gives the plaintiff the right to dispose of his claims, and the court cannot refuse to grant the application to leave the claim without consideration. Also, the court of cassation noted that leaving the claim without consideration regarding one of the joint debtors does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to demand from other debtors the fulfillment of the obligation in full. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the appellants, since theyand do not affect the correctness of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeals and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the постанову [ruling] of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 602/563/19 dated 27/03/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal sale and storage of narcotic substances.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeals of the defense counsel, the convicted person, and the prosecutor. The arguments of the defense regarding the provocation of the crime and the inadmissibility of evidence were rejected, as the courts of previous instances thoroughly verified these arguments and gave them due assessment. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of signs of provocation of the crime and the proper qualification of the actions of the convicted person. At the same time, the court of cassation found that at the time of consideration of the case by the court of first instance, the statute of limitations for bringing a person to criminal liability under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code, which is a criminal offense, had expired. The courts of previous instances did not explain to the person their right to be released from criminal liability in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations, as provided for in Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a violation of procedural law. However, since the convicted person objected to the closure of the criminal proceedings on a non-rehabilitating basis, the court of cassation continued the consideration of the case in the general procedure.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, amended the court decisions, releasing the person from punishment under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code in connection with the expiration of the statute of limitations, but upheld the verdict in the part of the conviction under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code.
Case No. 756/12099/20 dated 03/04/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic rules, which resulted in moderate bodily injury to the victim.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the person guilty of violating traffic rules, which led to an accident and injury to the cyclist. The court of cassation confirmed that the conclusions of the courts are based on a set of evidence, including the testimony of the victim, a witness, a video recording from the scene, and the conclusions of expert examinations. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defense regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, in particular, the protocol of inspection of the scene of the accident, video recording from the surveillance camera, conclusions of forensic medical and auto-technical examinations, noting that the violations committed during the collection of evidence were not significant and did not affect the validity of the verdict. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments
regarding the violation of the right to defense, as the defense counsel was given the opportunity to review the case materials. The court of cassation emphasized 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 substantive law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 404/4869/23 dated 04/03/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found the guilt of PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 in committing robbery to be proven. The court of cassation noted that the conclusions of the courts are based on the testimony of the victim, witnesses, protocols of investigative actions, and video recordings, which confirm the prior conspiracy between the convicts and their intentional actions aimed at seizing the victim’s property with the use of violence. The Supreme Court rejected the defense’s arguments about the absence of a mercenary motive in the actions of PERSON_6, pointing to the presence of evidence confirming their prior agreement to steal the phone. The court also rejected the argument about the need to reclassify the actions under Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft), since the fact of open theft of property with the use of violence was established. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of violence that is not life-threatening or harmful to the health of the victim does not exclude qualification under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, if there are other qualifying features, such as the commission of a crime under martial law.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of the defense lawyers without satisfaction, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 370/1341/23 dated 03/27/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal against the judgments of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed repeatedly under martial law.
The court of cassation satisfied the cassation appeal of the prosecutor, motivating this by the fact that after the commission of the crime, namely theft, changes were made to the legislation that increased the amount of the sum that qualifies as petty theft and, accordingly, decriminalized the actions committed by the convicted person. The court took into account that, according to Article 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a law that abolishes the criminal illegality of an act has retroactive effect. Also, the court referred to the legal position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court as part of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution of October 7, 2024, in case No. 278/1566/21. Since the value of the stolen property did not exceed 2684
UAH, which is the threshold for criminal liability at the time of the case, the criminal proceedings are subject to closure on the basis of paragraph 4-1 part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The court overturned the verdicts of the courts of previous instances and closed the criminal proceedings, releasing the convict from custody.
Case No. 463/9168/23 dated April 1, 2025
Good day! Let’s take a closer look at this ruling of the Supreme Court.
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Lviv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the Slavske Settlement Council against the ruling of the investigating judge regarding temporary access to items and documents.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not state the court’s arguments. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, and then it will be possible to understand the logic of the court. For now, we can only state that the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal, which saw no grounds for opening appellate proceedings. Perhaps, the Court of Appeal considered that the complaint was filed by an improper subject, or the deadlines for appeal had been missed, or the appeal complaint did not meet the requirements of the law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Slavske Settlement Council.
Case No. 910/17462/23 dated March 19, 2025
Good day! I will be happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of participants of RAZBORN-ADV LLC regarding the contribution of property to the authorized capital, the recognition as invalid of the act of acceptance and transfer of this property, and the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on the registration of ownership of this property.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the bank’s cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for recognition as invalid of the act of acceptance and transfer of an additional contribution to the authorized capital of RAZBORN-ADV LLC and the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar, and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not establish all the circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the case, in particular, whether the guarantor had debt at the time of the transfer of property, whether it ceased to be solvent after that, whether it applied to the bank for approval to alienate the property, how the size of the authorized capital of RAZBORN-ADV LLC changed after the introduction of property, whether the composition of the company’s participants changed, what share in the authorized capital corresponds to the value of the contributed property, and whether there is a connection between the guarantor and RAZBORN-ADV LLC. Regarding the claim for recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting, the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss this claim, but on other grounds, noting that the decision of the general meeting is an act of a non-normative nature.
that it is necessary to challenge the final result of a set of actions for the transfer of property – a transaction formalized by an acceptance certificate.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for invalidation of the acceptance certificate of an additional contribution to the authorized capital of “RAZBOR-ADV” LLC and cancellation of the decision of the state registrar, and sent the case in this part for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 561/797/23 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for transferring information about the Armed Forces of Ukraine to a representative of a foreign state.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings due to the death of the convict, guided by the legal conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, according to which the cassation proceedings are subject to closure in the event of the death of the convict, if there is no need for his rehabilitation. The court noted that rehabilitation involves the possibility of proving the innocence of the deceased, but this requires a statement from family members or close relatives, which was not the case here. Since no other complaints were received against the decisions of the previous instances, the Supreme Court found no grounds to continue the cassation review.
3. The court ruled to close the cassation proceedings on the cassation appeal of the defense counsel against the verdict and ruling regarding the convict.
Case No. 910/1152/24 dated 04/01/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the contract between the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine and a consortium of companies for the development of software.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the contract contains an arbitration clause that provides for the resolution of disputes in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The defendant, Private Joint Stock Company “Computer Technology Center “Infoplus”, before the start of the case consideration on the merits, filed an objection against the dispute consideration in the commercial court, referring to this arbitration clause. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the invalidity, loss of validity, or impossibility of execution of the arbitration agreement. The court also referred to Article 22 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows the transfer of a dispute for consideration to international commercial arbitration by agreement of the parties. The court noted that any inaccuracies in the text of the agreement on the transfer of the dispute to a arbitration court, international commercial arbitration, and (or) doubts about its validity, validity and enforceability should be interpreted by the court in favor of its validity, validity and enforceability. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, emphasizing that it is a court of law, and
not of fact, and may not re-evaluate the circumstances of the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 916/407/24 dated 04/08/2025**
Hello! Here is my analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Communal Non-Commercial Enterprise “Odesa Regional Clinical Oncology Center” to perform certain actions in favor of the Limited Liability Company “V.S. PROJECT”.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings on one of the grounds for cassation appeal provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeal on another ground provided for in paragraph 3 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the court found that the cassation appeal did not contain sufficient legal arguments for reviewing the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court probably agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the circumstances of the case and the application of the norms of substantive and procedural law. The absence of specific reasons in the Supreme Court’s decision does not allow to accurately determine which arguments of the appellant were rejected, but it can be assumed that they did not convince the court that the law was incorrectly applied or the evidence was incorrectly assessed by the courts of previous instances. The court could have concluded that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the rules of law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Region and the постанову of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 916/5766/23 dated 04/01/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the service agreement as invalid, which the prosecutor’s office considers to be a sham transaction concealing a state property lease agreement.
2. The court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments, noting that the agreement between the “Viysktorgservice” Concern and “Business Matrix” LLC actually transfers the right to possess and use state property for a fee, which is a sign of lease relations, and not the provision of storage services. The court emphasized that the agreement lacks essential conditions characteristic of a storage agreement, in particular, the obligations of the custodian to ensure the safety of the property and liability for its loss or damage. Instead, the terms of the agreement indicate the transfer of property for placement and storage, which involves actual possession and use of this property. The court also took into account that the parties did not comply with the procedure established by law for the transfer of state property for lease, in particular, no assessment of the property was carried out to determine the rent and the necessary permits were not obtained. The court rejected the Concern’s arguments regarding freedom of contract, emphasizing that private agreements cannot violate
evade public law and evade the mandatory requirements of the legislation on the lease of state property.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, recognizing the contract as invalid and obliging Business Matrix LLC to vacate the occupied premises.
**Case No. 260/3370/24 dated 04/08/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Uzhhorod City District Court, represented by the chairman of the court, to grant Judge PERSON_1 an annual basic and additional leave outside the schedule, as well as compensation for moral damage.
The court of first instance dismissed the claim, referring to the legality of the actions of the chairman of the court, since the plaintiff was aware of the leave schedule. The appellate court overturned this decision, recognizing the refusal to grant leave as unlawful, since the defendants did not take into account the interests of the plaintiff’s child, who needed a medical examination, and violated Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that leave schedules are necessary to ensure the continuous administration of justice, especially in times of war and staff shortages. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to obtain leave outside the schedule, but did not take the opportunity to agree on its terms. In addition, the court pointed out that although the plaintiff is entitled to social leave as a mother of two children, she did not initiate the issue of granting it.
The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 400/6692/23 dated 04/08/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Mykolaiv region regarding PROMETEY-SILOS LLC.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the case in cassation proceedings, established that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the courts needed to more thoroughly examine the primary documents on the basis of which the tax assessment notice was issued, and assess the arguments of the taxpayer regarding the legality of his actions. Also, the courts did not take into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court regarding similar legal relations. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are premature and unfounded, and a retrial by the court of first instance is necessary for a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Mykolaiv region, overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
