Case No. 420/36842/23 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of OMR to terminate the right of YUNA-2019 LLC to perform construction work based on the notification of the start of construction work.
2. The court dismissed the claim of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of OMR, because:
* YUNA-2019 LLC has the ownership right to the land plot, the designated purpose of which is for the construction and maintenance of a residential building.
* Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 722 allows the construction of individual residential buildings up to 500 square meters without obtaining a building permit.
* Restrictions on the minimum area of a land plot for new construction (according to SBN B.2.2-12:2019) apply to cases of granting land plots to citizens, and not to acquiring them into ownership.
* The Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of OMR did not prove the existence of signs of unauthorized construction, provided for by Law No. 3038-VI.
* The Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of OMR did not comply with the procedure for exercising state architectural and construction control.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of OMR without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 9901/231/20 dated 03/13/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on the dismissal of a judge from office on the basis of violation of the oath.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the decision of the High Council of Justice of Ukraine (HCJU) on submitting a motion for the dismissal of the judge for violation of the oath is valid, and the dismissal procedure was not completed, since the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a resolution on dismissal, which was later canceled by the court. In accordance with the changes in legislation, the powers to dismiss judges were transferred to the HCJ, which completed the procedure, relying on the previous decision of the HCJU. The court also noted that the factual circumstances that formed the basis for the HCJ’s decision were established by the HCJU’s decision, which is valid, and the HCJ did not have the authority to re-evaluate these findings. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of the terms of bringing to disciplinary responsibility, since the decision to bring to responsibility was made by the HCJU within the established terms. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but did not recognize the need to review the HCJU’s decision as a mandatory measure of an individual nature.
3. The court left the appeal complaint without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance – without changes, confirming the legality of the HCJ’s decision on the dismissal of the judge.
Case No. 732/1058/24 dated 04/07/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the early termination of the contract
of land lease agreement and termination of the lease right initiated by the landowner due to the lessee’s systematic violation of the agreement terms regarding rent payment.
2. The cassation court agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance and closed the proceedings, reasoning that after the amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine, the right to lease an agricultural land plot can be alienated by the lessee without the consent of the owner, and therefore, the lease right can be included in the liquidation estate of the debtor in the bankruptcy case. Since the termination of the lease agreement will affect the debtor’s liquidation estate, the dispute is subject to consideration within the bankruptcy case in the commercial court. The court also took into account that all property disputes in which the debtor in the bankruptcy case is a party must be considered by the commercial court that is hearing the bankruptcy case. The cassation court noted that the closure of proceedings due to jurisdiction is not a violation of the right to access to justice.
3. The cassation court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, confirming that the dispute should be considered within the bankruptcy case in the commercial court.
Case No. 520/32557/23 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as promised:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Commission on Determining the Status of Persons Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster, regarding the refusal to grant the status of a participant in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, and the obligation of the commission to make a decision on issuing the relevant certificate.
2. The cassation court, in overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the following main arguments:
* The invalidity of the previous certificate of a participant in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident is not an obstacle for a person to reapply to the authorized body to confirm this status and obtain a new certificate.
* The appellate court unjustifiably took into account an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Commission on Disputed Issues, provided by the defendant only at the stage of appellate review, without proper justification for the impossibility of submitting it to the court of first instance.
* The appellate court mistakenly failed to take into account the court decision that has entered into force, which established the fact of the plaintiff’s stay and work in the exclusion zone during the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident.
* The decision of the Commission to refuse to grant the status of a participant in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident is unfounded, as it does not contain any explanations as to why the documents submitted by the plaintiff cannot confirm his participation in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident, and also does not take into account the plaintiff’s assertion about his participation in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident in 1986, and not in 1988, as indicated in the Commission’s decision.
* The defendant did not provelegality of his decision to refuse to grant the status of a participant in the liquidation of the consequences of the Chornobyl accident.
* The court emphasized the importance of compliance by public authorities with the principle of good governance, which implies the reasonableness and motivation of their decisions.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and amended the decision of the court of first instance, stating its reasoning part in a new wording, but leaving in force the decision to satisfy the claims.
Case No. 990/225/24 dated March 13, 2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) to refuse to recommend PERSON_1 for appointment to the position of judge.
2. The court, upholding the decision of the HQCJU, was guided by the following main arguments:
* A candidate for the position of judge must meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.
* The HQCJU has discretionary powers to assess the candidate’s compliance with these criteria, and the court should not interfere with this assessment unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable.
* The plaintiff failed to declare in her 2022 declaration information about the Porsche Cayenne car, which was purchased for her abroad, although she was obliged to do so.
* The available documents (forward export agreement, invoice, customs declaration, powers of attorney) confirm that PERSON_1 was the buyer of the car, regardless of who actually made the payment.
* The plaintiff’s explanations regarding the purchase of the car for another person (PERSON_3) are unconvincing and are refuted by the available documents.
* Failure to disclose information about the car in the declaration raises reasonable doubts about the integrity of the candidate.
* The court of first instance correctly established the circumstances of the case and made a decision in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal of PERSON_1 and leave the decision of the court of first instance unchanged.
Case No. 753/125/21 dated April 09, 2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of the joint property of the spouses, namely the car and non-residential premises.
2. The court of appeal satisfied the claim of the ex-wife, recognizing the disputed property as the joint joint property of the spouses and dividing it equally, since the ex-husband could not refute the presumption of joint ownership of property acquired during the marriage. The court noted that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence that the property was acquired exclusively with his personal funds received from the return of debt under a loan agreement. Also, the court took into account that the statement signed by the plaintiff confirming the acquisition of property with the husband’s personal funds is not an agreement on the division of property and does not refute the presumption.
community property of spouses. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of community property lies with the spouse who disputes it, and that the evidence provided by the defendant was not sufficient for this.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
**Case No. 905/950/24 dated 04/10/2025**
Good day! I would be happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds between two energy companies: “Ukrenergo” and “Donbasenergo,” where each company acts as both plaintiff and defendant.
2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the arguments of the parties and the motives of the court from the provided text. The introductory and operative parts of the resolution do not contain information about the circumstances of the case established by the courts of previous instances, and the arguments of the cassation appeal. There are no references to specific norms of substantive and procedural law that the court of cassation relied on when making the decision. Therefore, at the moment, it is only possible to state the fact that the court decisions of previous instances were overturned in the part of the claims of “Ukrenergo” regarding the recovery of inflation losses and 3% annual interest on the counterclaim of “Donbasenergo.” The case in this part was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance. The decisions of the courts of previous instances in other parts were left unchanged.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of “Ukrenergo,” overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the recovery of inflation losses and 3% annual interest, and left the decisions unchanged in the rest.
**Case No. 380/23272/24 dated 04/10/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested.
The subject of the dispute is the decision of the tax authority to exclude a sole proprietor from the register of single tax payers.
The court, granting the sole proprietor’s application for securing the claim, proceeded from the fact that failure to take measures to secure the claim could significantly complicate the effective protection of the sole proprietor’s rights, as the restoration of economic activity would require significant effort and financial costs, and compensation for damages is possible only through a new court process. The court took into account that the economic feasibility of the sole proprietor’s activity was calculated based on the terms of the simplified taxation system, and the transition to the general system would lead to an increase in the tax burden and losses. The court also noted that a sharp increase in the cost of services could lead to the loss of customers and damage to the business reputation of the sole proprietor, and in wartime, a large number of subscribers may be left without access to the Internet. The court emphasized that securing the claim would restore the sole proprietor’s right to stable economic activity until the final resolution of the dispute.
The court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, leaving the cassation appeal
tax authority’s appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 340/5261/24 dated April 10, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a former serviceman against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay him full monetary allowance for the period from January 29, 2020, to April 24, 2024, as well as a claim for ordering a recalculation and payment of these amounts, taking into account compensation for delayed payments.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the provisions of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – LC) in the wording that limits the term of appeal to the court to three months, without taking into account that the disputed period covers the time before and after the amendments to this article. The court emphasized that it is necessary to take into account the previous position of the Supreme Court, according to which the wording of Article 233 of the LC, which did not limit the term of appeal to the court, applies to legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022, and the current wording with the term limitation applies to legal relations after that date. Also, the court pointed out the need to take into account the quarantine period, which extended the terms of appeal to the court, and the moment when the plaintiff received reliable information about the amount of payments made to calculate the term of appeal to the court. ** The court departed from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the wording in force at the time of appeal to the court, regardless of the period of occurrence of the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance to take into account the above circumstances when resolving the issue of compliance with the term of appeal to the court.
Case No. 200/2237/24 dated April 10, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay monetary allowance to the plaintiff for a certain period of military service.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to open proceedings due to the missed deadline for appealing to the court, established by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the plaintiff’s references to martial law and employment in military service are not sufficient grounds for renewing the term, since no specific evidence was provided to confirm that these circumstances objectively prevented timely appeal to the court. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff received information about the amount of payments back in June 2023, and appealed to the court only in April 2024, which indicates her passive behavior. The court emphasized that the right to access to justice is not absolute and may be limited by the terms of appeal, which aim to ensure
of legal certainty. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which only those circumstances that were objectively insurmountable and did not depend on the will of the person are recognized as valid reasons for missing the deadline.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 380/10576/23 dated April 10, 2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to take into account indexation and additional remuneration when calculating financial assistance for health improvement, one-time financial assistance, and compensation for unused vacations for a serviceman.
2. The court of first instance satisfied the claim, believing that the additional remuneration provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 168 is of a monthly nature and should be taken into account when calculating payments, as well as indexation of financial support. The appellate court partially overturned this decision, agreeing with the need to take indexation into account, but rejected the claim to take additional remuneration into account, considering it a temporary payment. The Supreme Court partially supported the position of the appellate court regarding the failure to take additional remuneration into account when calculating financial assistance for health improvement and one-time financial assistance, citing the fact that the Procedure for Payment of Financial Support No. 260 excludes remuneration from the calculation of these payments. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court regarding the failure to take additional remuneration into account when calculating compensation for unused vacations, since Procedure No. 260 does not contain restrictions regarding taking remuneration into account when calculating this payment. The court noted that additional remuneration, although paid during martial law, is of a permanent nature of payment.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decision of the appellate court regarding the reasons for refusing to take additional remuneration into account when calculating financial assistance and one-time financial assistance, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding taking additional remuneration into account when calculating compensation for unused vacations.
Case No. 910/15170/23 dated April 2, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from SE “Santrade” in favor of LLC “TEP “Horizon” of UAH 29,865,162.59, which includes additional expenses, losses, lost profits, penalties, 3% per annum and inflation losses related to improper performance of the transport and forwarding services agreement.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of LLC “TEP “Horizon”, based on the following:
* The courts correctly established that SE “Santrade” violated the terms of the agreement, in particular, regarding the terms of loading and unloading operations, which led to additional expenses
at LLC “TEP “Horizon”.
* Additional expenses incurred by LLC “TEP “Horizon” due to violation of the terms of loading and unloading operations are contractual obligations of SE “Santrade”, and not penalties or losses that require proof of guilt.
* The courts reasonably distinguished between the concepts of “loading and unloading operations” and “loading and unloading works”, taking into account that the first concept includes a set of actions, not just direct loading/unloading.
* The imposition of sanctions on the ultimate beneficial owner of LLC “TEP “Horizon” is not a basis for refusing to satisfy the claim, as the sanctions are not applied directly to the company.
* LLC “TEP “Horizon” has not proven the real possibility of obtaining lost profits, therefore, in this part, the claims are not subject to satisfaction.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of both parties, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the appealed parts unchanged.
Case No. 140/2600/24 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Yu-Avto” of tax notices-decisions of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region regarding a fine for the lack of registration of tax invoices and overstatement of the negative value of the tax credit.
2. The court, satisfying the claims of LLC “Yu-Avto”, proceeded from the fact that the company provided sufficient evidence confirming the actual sale of cars and the issuance of relevant tax invoices, in particular sales contracts, acceptance certificates, technical condition certificates, tax invoices, the dates of which coincide with the dates of registration of cars in the service centers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The court did not agree with the arguments of the tax authority regarding the absence of an inventory and, as a result, the lack of confirmation of the availability of cars, since the actual movement of cars is confirmed by other documents. The court also took into account that operations for the sale of vehicles are subject to special control by the state, and the registration of vehicles makes it impossible to carry out registration actions without their real existence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the assessment of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no right to re-evaluate these circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 520/30156/24 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority on the cancellation of the registration of LLC “DANET” as a single tax payer.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances granted the application of LLC “DANET” for securing the claim, suspending the operation of the decision of
of the tax authority on the cancellation of the single tax payer’s registration. The courts proceeded from the fact that the cancellation of the single tax payer’s registration would lead to the company’s transition to the general taxation system, which would increase the tax burden and negatively affect its business activities. The courts also took into account that compensation for damages that may arise as a result of the execution of the appealed decision would be associated with significant difficulties for the company. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the purpose of securing the claim is to avoid possible violations of the rights and interests of DANET LLC in the future, as well as to ensure the real execution of the court decision if the claim is satisfied. The court of cassation emphasized that failure to take measures to secure the claim may significantly complicate the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/2697/24 dated 04/08/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC against “Kyivski enerhetychni posluhy” LLC and PrJSC “DTEK Kyivski elektromerezhi” regarding the cancellation of the electricity bill and the recalculation of the volume of electricity consumed.
2. The court dismissed the claim because “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC did not prove that the defendants made an incorrect calculation for the electricity consumed. The court noted that the disputed relations are governed by the agreement between the parties, according to which “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC is a collective household consumer. The court also took into account that PrJSC “DTEK Kyivski elektromerezhi” deducts the volume of electricity consumed by residents who have direct contracts from the total volume of consumption of “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC. In addition, the court took into account the recalculation of the volume of distributed electricity carried out by PrJSC “DTEK Kyivski elektromerezhi” in February 2024, which reduced the charges for “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC. The court indicated that “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC independently determined the grounds and subject matter of the claims, and the court cannot go beyond their limits. The court also noted that “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC did not provide evidence that it is the manager of apartment buildings in the disputed legal relations.
3. The court upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal of “Misto dlia liudei Kyiv” LLC.
Case No. 620/1032/20 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! Of course, I analyzed this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual of tax notices-decisions on the accrual of real estate tax, other than land.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
of intermediate instances that refused to satisfy the claim of an individual to cancel tax assessment notices. The court proceeded from the fact that, according to the data of the State Register of Real Property Rights, the plaintiff does not have registered ownership of a residential building at the specified address, but has registered ownership of a non-residential building. At the same time, the courts took into account that the plaintiff unauthorizedly converted the non-residential building into a residential one, but did not register the changes in the established procedure. The court also noted that the building owned by the plaintiff is not included in the list of real estate objects that are not subject to taxation. In addition, the court of appeal verified the correctness of the calculation of real estate tax, which the court of cassation agreed with.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 580/1158/23 dated 04/10/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur (IE) against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv and the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region.
2. The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the actual inspections were carried out lawfully, since the tax authorities had information about possible violations of the law by the plaintiff in the field of circulation of excisable goods, which is a sufficient basis for conducting an inspection. The court noted that the officials of the State Tax Service complied with the procedure for conducting inspections, and the plaintiff’s arguments about the absence of labor relations with the persons who were present during the inspections do not refute the identified violations. Also, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide documents confirming the accounting of inventory, which is a violation of the law. Regarding the control settlement operations, the court recognized their conduct as duly documented, and the absence of evidence of the implementation of operations at the expense of budgetary funds does not refute the established violations. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the illegitimacy of issuing tax assessment notices by two bodies of the State Tax Service, since each of them acted within its competence.
3. The court dismissed the IE’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 904/3418/23 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
Subject of the dispute: Claiming shares from someone else’s illegal possession and obliging to carry out an accounting operation to write them off.
Arguments of the court: The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, as they violated the norms of procedural law by unreasonably refusing the plaintiff to accept the amended statement of claim. The courts did not take into account that the plaintiff did not simultaneously change the subject and grounds of the claim, but only clarified the circumsThe plaintiff did not change the claims for the recovery of shares and the obligation to perform an accounting transaction, as well as the main basis of the claim – the recognition of the share purchase agreement as invalid. The refusal to accept the amended statement of claim restricted the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
Court decision: The decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and the постанову (resolution) of the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeal are cancelled, and the case is sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/1847/24 dated 04/02/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on the provision of services for clearing the area from mines and explosive remnants of war and the additional agreement to it, concluded between the Private Organization “REGIONAL LANDSCAPE PARK “FELDMAN-ECOPARK” and the Subsidiary Enterprise of the State Company “Ukrspetsexport” – State Enterprise “Ukroboronservis”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, motivating it by the fact that the director of the park acted on the basis of the charter, which did not contain restrictions on the conclusion of transactions. In addition, the court noted that the park did not prove that Ukroboronservis knew or could have known about the restrictions established by the decision of the general meeting of the park’s participants regarding the amount of transactions that the director could conclude without approval. The court also took into account that information on the limitation of the director’s powers was not entered into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Formations at the time of the conclusion of the contract and the additional agreement. The applicant’s arguments that the defendant should have taken into account the amount of the plaintiff’s authorized capital and its non-profitability were rejected, as these circumstances are not grounds for recognizing transactions as invalid. The court also noted that it cannot be argued that only the circumstances of the subsequent approval of the transaction are decisive in the issue of recognizing it as invalid.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/3208/24 dated 04/01/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Kyiv City Council on the transfer of land plots for permanent use to “Kyivzelenbud”, as well as the cancellation of the state registration of these plots and rights to them.
The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances. In particular, at the time of the conclusion of the contract of purchase and sale of non-residential premises
of buildings, the Main Department of Communal Property did not have formalized land rights, and the Kyiv City Council did not express a clear will to transfer the land to the Ownership. The court also emphasized that the Ownership had not completed the procedure for formalizing land rights, as provided for by the Land Code of Ukraine. It is important that the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff did not prove that the disputed land plots directly affect the use of his real estate, and also did not provide sufficient evidence of the impossibility of access to his buildings in the event of the organization of a square on these plots. In addition, the court noted that the method of protection chosen by the Ownership (appealing the decision on the transfer of land to “Kyivzelenbud”) is not effective, as it does not guarantee the transfer of land into the ownership or use of the Ownership.
The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim.
Case No. 300/4721/23 dated April 10, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The entrepreneur appealed against the refusal of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council to approve the land management project regarding the allocation of a land plot to him for lease for the placement of transport infrastructure facilities.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
* The court noted that the city council had already twice refused the entrepreneur to approve the land management project, which indicates a deliberate delay in the process.
* The city council’s decision did not contain a clear list of shortcomings of the land management project and references to specific legal norms, as required by law.
* The court did not agree with the city council’s arguments that the land plot is located within the “red lines” and this makes its use impossible, since a previous decision of the city council approved a plan of “red lines”, according to which the disputed plot does not fall under restrictions.
* The court also took into account that the city council had previously refused the entrepreneur on other grounds, namely because another company was claiming this plot, which indicates inconsistency in the council’s actions.
* The court emphasized that the obligation to approve the land management project is an administrative act, which must be preceded by an administrative procedure defined by law.
* The court took into account that after the decision of the appellate court, which obliged the city council to reconsider the entrepreneur’s application, the city council again refused to approve the project, which indicates the ineffectiveness of this method of protection.
3. **Court decision:** The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which obliged the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council to approve the land management project regarding the allocation of a land plot to the entrepreneur.
Case No. 922/1341/22 dated April 1, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you
and requested:
The subject of the dispute is PJSP “Demetra’s” application for the distribution of court costs, namely the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The court refused to distribute the costs of legal assistance for the initial cassation review, as it believes that the distribution of these costs should be carried out by the court of appeal, which made the final decision after the new consideration of the case. The court also noted that a repeated review of the issue of the distribution of the same court costs is inadmissible, since the appellate court had already refused to satisfy a similar application of PJSP “Demetra.” Regarding the costs of legal assistance during the repeated cassation review, the court recognized them as excessive and disproportionate to the complexity of the case, considering that the legal position of PJSP “Demetra” was largely based on the previous decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case between the same parties. The court also took into account that PJSP “Demetra” did not provide a detailed description of the work performed by the lawyer, and the act of acceptance and transfer of services did not contain specific information regarding the scope and duration of the services provided.
The court partially satisfied the application of PJSP “Demetra” and recovered UAH 10,000 from the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office for the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance during the new consideration of the case.
Case No. 902/1177/15(902/702/20) dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in enforcement proceedings, namely the debtor, in connection with the privatization of a state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which granted the state executor’s application to replace the debtor in enforcement proceedings from the State Enterprise “Murafa Quarry” to LLC “Construction Company “New Minerals”” as the legal successor who acquired the integrated property complex of the state enterprise in the privatization process. The court proceeded from the fact that, according to Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property,” persons who acquired state enterprises as integrated property complexes are the legal successors of their property rights and obligations. Also, the court noted that procedural succession is allowed at any stage of the proceedings, including the stage of execution of a court decision, and that, according to Part 2 of Article 334 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, an application for replacement of a party by its legal successor may be filed, in particular, by a state executor. The court also referred to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that at the stage of enforcement proceedings, replacement of a party to enforcement proceedings by a legal successor is possible in the procedure provided for by Article 334 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 300/4721/23 dated 10
/04/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: Individual Entrepreneur (FOP) OSOBA_1 appealed the refusal of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council to approve the land management project for the allocation of a land plot for lease for the placement and operation of buildings and structures of additional transport services.
Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance, noting that the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council acted unlawfully by refusing FOP OSOBA_1 to approve the land management project. The court pointed out that the city council did not provide an exhaustive list of deficiencies in the land management project, as required by the Land Code of Ukraine, and also did not properly justify its refusal. In addition, the court took into account that the city council had previously refused the plaintiff on other grounds, which indicates inconsistency in decision-making. The Supreme Court also took into account that similar arguments regarding red lines had already been the subject of consideration in another case, where the court found them unfounded. The court emphasized that the method of protection must be effective, and in this case, the obligation of the city council to reconsider the application is not such, since the city council has already refused the plaintiff twice. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided that the only effective way to protect is to oblige the city council to approve the land management project.
Court decision: The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which obliged the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council to approve the land management project for the allocation of a land plot to FOP OSOBA_1.
Case №340/5780/24 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the prosecution and the court regarding the violation of reasonable time limits for consideration of criminal cases and the claim for compensation for moral damage.
2. The court of cassation focused on the analysis of the applicant’s arguments regarding the violation by the court of appeal of the norms of procedural law, namely the consideration of the case by an unauthorized composition of the court due to violations of the automated case distribution. The court found that, indeed, the repeated automated distribution of the case in the court of appeal was carried out in violation of the established rules, since there were no legal grounds for changing the composition of the panel of judges. The court emphasized that the current procedural legislation does not provide for such a basis for repeated automated distribution as the approval of the composition of permanent panels of judges. The court also noted that the composition of the court is unauthorized if the case is referred to a judge in violation of the established procedure for the distribution of court cases or in violation of the principle of immutability of the composition of the court. Given these violations, the Supreme Court found the applicant’s arguments to be well-founded that the decision of the court of appeal was adopted by an unauthorized composition of the court.
that is an unconditional ground for the annulment of the decision.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 420/30622/23 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the military unit against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recalculation and payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman, taking into account the subsistence level and additional payments.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings for the military unit due to missing the deadline for appealing. The court noted that valid reasons for missing the deadline can only be circumstances that objectively made it impossible to apply to the court in a timely manner, and these circumstances must be supported by proper evidence. The court took into account that the introduction of martial law, in itself, is not an unconditional ground for restoring the deadline, unless it is proven that the martial circumstances directly prevented the commission of procedural actions. The court also emphasized that state bodies must act in a timely manner and comply with procedural deadlines, and internal organizational issues cannot be an excuse for their violation.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit, and the ruling of the appellate court was left unchanged.
Case No. 922/2442/24 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a contract for the provision of ritual services between an individual entrepreneur (IE) and a communal enterprise (CE) as concluded.
2. The court satisfied the IE’s claim, as the entrepreneur performed all the necessary actions to conclude the contract, and the CE unjustifiably evaded signing it. The court noted that the contract proposed by the IE met the requirements of the law, in particular the Commercial Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Burial and Funeral Affairs.” The CE did not provide a protocol of disagreements regarding the terms of the contract, as required by law. The court also indicated that the CE’s requirement to provide a copy of the certificate of state registration (which at that time had already been replaced by an extract from the Unified State Register) is unreasonable, as the IE provided other documents confirming its status as a business entity. The court emphasized that the refusal of a ritual service to conclude a contract with a business entity may lead to a restriction of competition in the market of ritual services.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged.
Case No. 240/23327/23 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit.
Concerning the non-payment of monetary allowance owed to the deceased serviceman.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which had refused to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the military unit. The appellate court considered that the military unit had missed the deadline for appellate appeal without valid reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed, pointing out that the case file lacked evidence of proper notification of the military unit regarding the decision of the court of first instance. The court of first instance had to either send the decision to the electronic cabinet of the military unit (if it was registered) or send it by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. There was no proper evidence of this in the case file. The Supreme Court emphasized that ensuring the right to appellate review is an important guarantee of justice, and the appellate court did not properly investigate the circumstances regarding the receipt of the decision of the court of first instance by the military unit.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate instance.
Case No. 924/602/24 dated April 10, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of additional agreements to the procurement contract and the recovery of a penalty for improper performance of obligations.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement,” limiting the possibility of extending the term of the contract only to circumstances of force majeure confirmed by a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Supreme Court emphasized that objective circumstances that caused the extension of the term for performing the works can be confirmed by any documents, not just a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The court also took into account that the parties in the contract provided for the possibility of reviewing the terms of performance of the works in the event of circumstances that delay their performance through no fault of the contractor. In addition, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court did not establish the presence or absence of actual circumstances with which the law connects the recognition of the disputed transactions as invalid at the time of their conclusion. It was also taken into account that the parties concluded an additional agreement on the termination of the contract at the stage of actual performance, which affects the possibility of accruing penalties.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 460/4102/20 dated April 10, 2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order of the Main Department of the State Geocadastre in the Rivne region, which obliges OLASINVEST LLC to ensure the performance of
use of the existing soil cover on the land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that at the time of the inspection of OLASINVEST LLC, the fertile soil layer on the land plot was already absent, as it had been removed by the previous owner based on the relevant permit back in 2009. There was no obligation to obtain a repeated permit for the removal of soil cover during construction works in 2020, since there was actually nothing left to remove. The court also took into account that the decision to bring the head of OLASINVEST LLC to administrative responsibility for violating land protection requirements was overturned by the court, and the claim for recovery from OLASINVEST LLC of damages caused to land resources was dismissed. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments about the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the legal relations in those cases were not similar to this situation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/8866/24 dated 04/10/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of JSC “DTEK Zakhidenergo” of 3% annual interest and inflation losses, accrued on the debt amount for the period of delay in the execution of a court decision in another case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claims of JSC “DTEK Zakhidenergo”. The court proceeded from the fact that the court decision in case No. 914/1122/23, which recovered the principal debt amount, has preclusive effect for this case. Since PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” delayed the execution of this decision, JSC “DTEK Zakhidenergo” had the right to accrue 3% annual interest and inflation losses in accordance with Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the absence of its fault in the delay, since funds for payment of balancing electricity are received in a special account and depend on the payments of other market participants. The court emphasized that the existence of a special account does not exempt from liability for delaying a monetary obligation. Also, the court noted that the defendant did not provide proper justifications for deviating from the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the preclusive effect of the circumstances established by the court decision.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/495/24 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: “Danube” LLC challenged the act of violation of the RRE and the decision of the commission of JSC “Poltavaoblenergo”.
regarding the additional assessment of the cost of unrecorded electricity.
Arguments of the court: The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which признали протиправним рішення комісії “Полтаваобленерго”, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the prejudicial circumstances established in another case between the same parties. In particular, in the previous case, the fact of damage to the seal was established, which is the basis for the additional assessment of the cost of unrecorded electricity. The court emphasized that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force do not require proof in another case between the same parties. Also, the court noted that the conclusions regarding the application of legal norms, which the complainant referred to, are not relevant, since they relate to other legal relations. The court rejected the arguments of “Dunai” LLC that the examination did not confirm interference in the operation of the metering device, since the fact of damage to the seal had already been established in another case. The court agreed with the conclusion of the previous instances to refuse to cancel the act of violation, since this is an ineffective way to protect the rights of the consumer.
Court decision: The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claim for the cancellation of the commission’s decision and refused to satisfy this claim, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 922/508/22 dated 04/01/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the privatization of non-residential premises, the recognition as invalid of the purchase and sale agreement and the mortgage of these premises, as well as their reclamation in favor of the territorial community.
2. The court refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the recognition of the city council’s decision, which has already been executed, as illegal is not an effective way to protect the rights of the community. Regarding the claim to признати недійсним договору купівлі-продажу, the court of first instance applied the statute of limitations, and the court of appeal noted that the claim for the recovery of property is the only effective way of protection. However, the court of appeal refused to satisfy this claim, because it believes that the reclamation of property from a bona fide purchaser (PERSON_1) will be a violation of the “principle of proportionality”, since it will place an excessive burden on an individual who добросовісно набула право власності. The court took into account that PERSON_1 did not know and could not know about the violation of the privatization procedure, and also relied on the data of the State Register of Real Property Rights.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 215/2909/24 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court of first instance’s ruling on the transfer of the case to another court
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appellate appeal. The court noted that although timely filing of the initial appeal may be a valid reason for restoring the deadline, in this case, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of receiving the ruling on the return of the first appeal. In addition, the court emphasized the obligation of participants in legal proceedings to report changes of residence and to exercise their procedural rights in good faith, including receiving court notices. Re-sending the appellate court’s ruling to the address indicated by the plaintiff is considered proper notification, even if the postal item was returned with a note about the expiration of the storage period. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not show sufficient activity to find out the results of the consideration of his petitions and the progress of the appeal.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 927/1687/23 dated 04/01/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a state property lease agreement as invalid and the obligation to return this property.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, who acted in the interests of the state, for the following reasons:
* The prosecutor missed the statute of limitations for challenging the lease agreement, concluded back in 2013, and subsequent amendments to it.
* State bodies, in particular the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, were aware of the terms of the lease and the misuse of property, but did not take measures to protect the interests of the state within the statute of limitations.
* The courts did not take into account the prosecutor’s arguments that the lease agreement and the agreement on its extension are separate transactions.
* The courts noted that since the main claim for recognition of the contract as invalid is not subject to satisfaction due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the derivative claim for the return of property also cannot be satisfied.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part concerning the agreement on the extension of the lease and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, pointing to the need to investigate the issue of the beginning of the statute of limitations regarding this separate agreement.
**Case No. 620/9540/24 dated 04/10/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a former serviceman against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to pay him additional remuneration for two days in March 2023.
2. The court refused to open proceedings, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing to the court.
established by Article 233 of the Code of Labor Laws of Ukraine, as amended by Law No. 2352-IX. The court noted that the plaintiff’s references to martial law and military service are not valid reasons for missing the deadline, as a significant period of time elapsed from the moment the plaintiff was discharged from military service until the moment of applying to the court. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he had previously filed a similar lawsuit with the court, as the previous application does not justify the violation of the deadline in this case. The court emphasized that the right to re-apply to the court is not absolute and does not allow ignoring the established procedural deadlines. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of objective circumstances that would have prevented him from applying to the court in a timely manner.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 916/5009/23 dated 04/01/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the shareholder’s claim against the joint-stock company to recognize the conclusion of the share purchase agreement, to oblige to take actions to repurchase the shares, and to recover inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the following:
* A shareholder has the right to demand the repurchase of shares if he voted against the decision on a significant transaction.
* The company is obliged to repurchase the shares within 30 days after receiving the shareholder’s request.
* The repurchase price cannot be less than the market value determined by the supervisory board.
* Since the supervisory board did not approve the market value, the court took into account the value established by a forensic examination in another case.
* Since the company delayed the fulfillment of the obligation to repurchase the shares, it is obliged to pay inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
* The court of cassation noted that it took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the procedure for repurchasing shares.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/2085/24 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 reclamation by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state of land plots from the illegal possession of a company that acquired them as property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the alienation of the disputed plots took place against the will of the territorial community, since previous decisions of the authorities on the transfer of these plots into private ownership were overturned by the court. However, the court decided that reclaiming property from a bona fide acquirer who acquired it under a paid contract would be a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, guaranteed by Article 1 of the Firstto the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court noted that a bona fide purchaser should not bear an “individual and excessive burden” due to violations committed by other persons in previous transactions with the property. The Court emphasized that the information in the state register of real property rights is presumed to be correct, and the purchaser may rely on it unless there are circumstances that raise doubts. The Court also took into account that LLC “Company Omega-Skhid” made payment for the purchased land plots.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 917/49/24 dated 04/01/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement and the return of the land plot, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the Lubny City Council due to the alleged misuse of the land by the lessee, LLC “Lubny Brick Factory.”
2. The court of appeal satisfied the prosecutor’s claim, citing the fact that LLC “Lubny Brick Factory” is using the land plot for purposes other than intended, namely: extracting minerals on part of the plot and growing soybeans on another part, which contradicts the terms of the lease agreement and the decision of the local self-government body on its allocation. The court referred to the land plot inspection reports, which recorded these facts, and to the lessee’s obligation to use the land in accordance with its intended purpose. At the same time, the court of cassation did not agree with this decision, as the appellate court did not examine the issue of the compatibility of the interference with the defendant’s right to peaceful possession (lease) of the land plot, and did not check whether the satisfaction of the prosecutor’s claim for termination of the land lease agreements would be in the interests of the state and the territorial community. The court of cassation also drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the absence of evidence of a change in the intended purpose of the land plot and the proper performance by the defendant of the terms of the lease agreement. In addition, the court of cassation pointed out that the appellate court did not establish whether the inspection reports are admissible evidence in the case, and did not check the arguments of LLC “Lubny Brick Factory” regarding non-compliance with the requirements of criminal procedure law during such inspections.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
**Case No. 908/2289/23 dated 04/10/2025**
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling on the return of the creditor’s application with monetary claims to the bankrupt due to non-elimination of deficiencies.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances erroneously
applied Article 45 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP), which defines the list of documents to be attached to the creditor’s application. The Supreme Court emphasized that the CUoBP does not require the creditor to send a copy of the application to all other creditors and provide information on the presence/absence of electronic cabinets for them, except for the debtor and the arbitration manager. The court also noted that the obligation to send copies of the application to other parties to the case and provide information about their electronic cabinets does not arise from Article 42 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPCU), since the creditor acquires the status of a party to the bankruptcy case only after the recognition of his claims by the court. The court of cassation also referred to the conclusion regarding the application of legal norms set out in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court dated July 16, 2020 in case No. 910/4475/19.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case to the court of first instance to continue consideration of the creditor’s application.
Case No. 240/31708/23 dated 04/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to include additional remuneration and indexation in the composition of monetary allowance for calculating financial assistance for health improvement to a serviceman.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, which refused to include the additional remuneration provided for by CMU (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Resolution No. 168 in the composition of monetary allowance for calculating financial assistance for health improvement, since this remuneration, although it is an additional type of monetary allowance, is not taken into account when calculating assistance for health improvement according to Procedure No. 260. The court emphasized that the legislator delegated to the CMU the right to determine the amounts of monetary allowance, and to the Minister of Defense – to establish the procedure for its payment, and it is Procedure No. 260 that establishes the exclusion of remuneration from the list of components of monetary allowance for calculating assistance for health improvement. The court also noted that the appellant’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court are irrelevant, as they relate to other types of payments or other categories of persons. At the same time, the court did not review the decision regarding the inclusion of indexation in the composition of monetary allowance, as the cassation appeal did not contain relevant arguments.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 240/31518/23 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the military unit’s refusal to include additional remuneration provided for by Resolution No. 168 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and indexation in the composition of monetary allowance, from which financial assistance for health improvement is calculated.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, which partially
satisfied the claims, recognizing as illegal the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to index monetary allowance when calculating and paying financial assistance for health improvement. At the same time, the courts refused to include the additional remuneration provided for by Resolution No. 168, since no normative legal act provides for the inclusion of this remuneration in the composition of the monetary allowance for calculating health improvement assistance, and paragraph 6 of section XXIII of Procedure No. 260 directly indicates that remunerations are not taken into account when calculating financial assistance for health improvement. The court noted that the provisions of Procedure No. 260, approved by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, specify the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families,” establishing the exclusion of remuneration from the list of components of monetary allowance that are taken into account when calculating the amount of health improvement assistance. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court on this issue, in particular the ruling of August 08, 2024, in case No. 240/26703/23, where a similar conclusion was made.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 520/5107/22 dated 03/20/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff appealed the orders imposing disciplinary sanctions and dismissing him from the position of head of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kharkiv region.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular:
* Whether the plaintiff was properly notified of the meeting of the disciplinary commission and of his right to provide explanations. The courts did not investigate whether notifications were sent to the plaintiff’s email address, whether he had access to the document management system, and whether acts were drawn up regarding the refusal to provide explanations.
* Whether the elements of the disciplinary offense in the form of violation of the Oath of a Civil Servant were proven. The courts did not establish whether the plaintiff took the Oath, and whether his actions undermined confidence in the state body.
* Whether the dismissal of the plaintiff required the approval of the Minister of Finance of Ukraine. The courts did not take into account that the procedure for bringing to disciplinary responsibility is regulated by a special law, which does not provide for such approval.
3. **Court decision:** The cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the decisions of the courts of previous instances were reversed in the part of satisfying the claims, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 902/1135/23 dated 04/09/2025**
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Agro-Industrial Scientific and Production Enterprise “Visit
for the benefit of “Tviy Gazzbut” Limited Liability Company for inflationary losses, 3% annual interest, penalties and fines under the natural gas supply agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the cassation appeal of ANVP “Vizit”, focused on the issue of the legal nature of the fine charged for underutilization of the confirmed gas volume, namely, whether it is damages or a fine. The court emphasized the principle of freedom of contract, according to which the parties are free to determine the terms of the contract and types of liability for its violation, unless prohibited by law. The court also took into account the previous ruling of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court of 15.11.2023 in case No. 904/1553/23, which clarified that if the parties clearly defined the payment as a fine, the court should not reclassify it as damages. The court indicated that the fine is aimed at encouraging proper performance of the obligation, and not only at compensating for damages. The court also noted that the conclusions of the joint chamber take precedence over the conclusions of the panel of judges.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of ANVP “Vizit” and to uphold the decision of the appellate court regarding the collection of the fine.
Case No. 380/211/23 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the resolution of Ukrtransbezpeka on the imposition of an administrative and economic fine on an individual entrepreneur.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized as illegal and overturned the resolution of Ukrtransbezpeka regarding the fine. The courts agreed that Ukrtransbezpeka violated the procedure for considering the case, as it did not properly notify the entrepreneur of the time and place of the hearing of the case on violation of transport legislation. The court emphasized that the obligation to notify the carrier about the hearing of the case is important, as it provides an opportunity to provide explanations and evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the consideration of the case without proper notification is a violation of the person’s right to participate in the decision-making process, which is unacceptable. The court also noted that when evaluating the decisions of the subject of power, the court should be guided by the criteria defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the adoption of decisions on the basis and in the manner prescribed by law. Taking into account the established violations, the court concluded that there were grounds for canceling the appealed resolution.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of Ukrtransbezpeka and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 300/2784/22 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal against the inaction of the Bolekhiv City Mayor and the Secretary of the City Council regarding the failure to implement the decisions of the extraordinary session of the City Council
