Case No. 752/2246/22 dated 04/16/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a non-residential building of a hotel and restaurant, which the plaintiff believes he bought from the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAS of Ukraine).
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the purchase of the property in the manner prescribed by law, and the provided payment documents only indicate the payment of rent. It is important that the courts of previous instances took into account previous court decisions, which established that the disputed property remains in state ownership and has not left it. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff transferred his rights as a tenant to another legal entity, and in the criminal proceedings denied the fact of the purchase of the property. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s behavior for a long time did not correspond to his current legal position, which contradicts the principle of good faith.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 205/1262/24 dated 04/17/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, as well as compensation for moral damage caused by a journalist who disseminated, according to the plaintiff, false information about her on the Facebook social network.
2. The court dismissed the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff is a public figure, and the defendant’s statements are value judgments that are not subject to refutation. The court noted that the criticism was expressed in response to the plaintiff’s publication on the social network, and the information about the tax debt was taken from a public source. The court also took into account that the defendant’s statements were not expressed in a rude, humiliating or indecent form. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation, and also noted that any criticism and evaluation of actions is not a basis for protecting the right to respect for honor, dignity and business reputation. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/6040/21 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the insolvency receiver for the imposition of joint and several liability on the former head of the bankrupt enterprise for failure to satisfy the creditors’ claims.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which imposed joint and several liability on the manager, considering that the courts did not determine
the amount of damages caused to the enterprise by the actions of the manager, and did not resolve the issue of its recovery in favor of the debtor for the further satisfaction of creditors’ claims. The court noted that the joint liability of the manager arises in the event that he did not apply to the court with a bankruptcy petition in the presence of a threat of insolvency, and this led to damages to the enterprise. **:** The court indicated that the recovery of funds from the manager should take place in favor of the debtor with subsequent crediting to the liquidation estate, thus deviating from previous practice. The court also emphasized that the insolvency receiver, when applying for the imposition of joint liability, acts in the interests of the debtor and creditors.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish the amount of damages and resolve the issue of its recovery.
Case No. 472/801/21 dated 04/15/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release the convicts from serving their sentence with probation for theft committed by prior conspiracy.
The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance, motivated by the fact that the court of first instance incorrectly applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on release from serving a sentence with probation. The court of appellate instance took into account the severity of the crime committed by prior conspiracy, the absence of circumstances that would indicate sincere repentance of the convicts, as well as mediocre character references from their place of residence and the lack of official employment. In addition, the appellate court took into account that release from serving a sentence with probation had already been applied to the convicts, which did not lead to positive changes in their behavior. The appellate court concluded that correction and prevention of new crimes is possible only in conditions of isolation from society, imposing a punishment close to the minimum within the sanction of the article.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 676/334/25 dated 04/22/2025
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to change the jurisdiction of the criminal proceedings, namely to transfer the case from one court to another.
2. The Supreme Court considered the defense counsel’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from the Kamianets-Podilskyi City-District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast to the Pervomaiskyi District Court of Chernivtsi. The court, guided by Articles 32, 33-1, 34, 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, decided to reject this motion.
regarding the change of jurisdiction. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific reasons for the refusal but states that the full text of the ruling with justification will be announced later. This means that the court likely did not find sufficient grounds to change the jurisdiction, considering the rules established by law.
3. The court ruled to deny the defense attorney’s motion to change jurisdiction, meaning the case will remain under consideration in the Kamianets-Podilskyi City District Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast.
Case №461/3028/21 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the recognition of a person as guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries) and the resolution of a civil claim for compensation for material and moral damages.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the convicted person’s cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instance courts only in the part of resolving the civil claim. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court took a formal approach to verifying the arguments of the defense regarding the unreasonableness of the civil claim, did not properly verify the evidence provided to confirm the amount of material damage, and did not provide convincing answers to the arguments of the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not investigate whether all expenses indicated in the receipts were actually related to the treatment of bodily injuries caused by the crime. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account the ruling of the court of cassation dated November 29, 2023, which overturned the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal dated May 25, 2023. The ruling of the court of cassation, among other things, stated that during the new appellate review, the appellate court must verify the arguments of the defense concerning the resolution of the victim’s civil claim, namely the compensation for material damage from the point of view of the relevance of the factual data submitted to prove its amount. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts must objectively investigate the circumstances of the case, clarify the nature of the legal relations, establish the amount of damage, and determine the procedure for its compensation.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and the verdict of the local court in the part of resolving the civil claim and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance under civil procedure.
Case №359/3358/21 dated 04/22/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: “Boryspilmiskbud” LLC appealed to the court with a demand to cancel the decisions of state registrars on the registration of ownership of apartments for PERSON_1 and PERSON_2, considering that the documents on the basis of which the registration was carried out are forged.
Main arguments of the court: The appellate court overturned the dethe court of first instance and granted the claim of “Boryspilmiskbud” LLC, as it found that “Agrobudpererobka LTD” LLC, which had obligations to “Boryspilmiskbud” LLC, ceased its activity, which led to the termination of obligations to PERSON_1 and PERSON_2. The key point was that “Boryspilmiskbud” LLC declared the unreliability of the documents provided by the defendants for registration of ownership, and filed a motion for an examination. The court demanded the originals of these documents from the defendants, but they did not provide them, citing their loss. The court considered this as evasion from conducting the examination and, guided by Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, recognized the fact of the unreliability of the documents as proven, which became the basis for granting the claim. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions of the appellate court.
Court decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of PERSON_2 and PERSON_1, and left the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 461/8060/23 dated 04/22/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Lviv City Council for compensation for moral damage caused, in his opinion, by illegal actions of the local self-government body regarding inadequate housing provision.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because the plaintiff did not prove the existence of all the necessary conditions for compensation for moral damage, namely: he did not prove the fact of causing moral damage specifically by the Lviv City Council, did not provide evidence of a causal link between the actions or inaction of the city council and the damage caused, and did not prove that it was the city council that illegally deprived him of the opportunity to receive an apartment. The court noted that the existence of previous court decisions in favor of the plaintiff is not an unconditional basis for compensation for moral damage, since the very fact of violation of rights does not always indicate the presence of moral suffering that is subject to compensation. The court also emphasized that the amount of moral damage must be justified taking into account the depth of mental suffering, and not only the value of the lost property. In addition, the court took into account that the obligation to provide housing to the plaintiff was assigned to “Energia” PJSC, and not to the Lviv City Council.
3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of PERSON_1.
Case No. 357/13033/21 dated 04/16/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerns the appeal against the order to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of teacher at a music school and the claim for reinstatement and payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
Arguments of the court:
The court of cassation found that the appellate court incorrectly calculated
calculated the amount of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, as he used incorrect data on the plaintiff’s salary for the relevant period. The court noted that forced absence from work lasts from the day of dismissal until the day the court of first instance makes a decision on reinstatement, and not until the moment the appellate court makes a decision. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of properly applying the Procedure for Calculating Average Wages (Procedure No. 100) when calculating payments for the period of forced absence from work. The court agreed with the decision of the court of appeal regarding the reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, considering them commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court of cassation also emphasized the need to resume execution of the court decision in the unchanged part.
Court decision: The cassation appeals are partially satisfied, the decision of the court of appeal is amended in the part of the amount of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, reducing it, and the issue of the distribution of court costs is resolved.
Case No. 280/1099/19 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between the bank and an individual.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the bank’s position regarding the existence of debt. The court noted that the bank provided sufficient evidence of the loan issuance and the existence of debt, in particular, account statements, which are proper evidence of the movement of funds. The defendant, in turn, did not provide any evidence to refute the fact of receiving credit funds or challenging the amount of debt. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the failure to conduct a forensic examination, since the responsibility for paying for the examination lay with him, and he did not do so. Importantly, the court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 367/3426/19 dated 04/16/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar, the cancellation of records on the ownership of a land plot, and the recognition of ownership of this plot by the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation, considering the case, noted that the task of civil proceedings is to effectively protect violated rights. For this, it is important to establish from which legal relations the dispute arose, whether the chosen method of protection is provided for by law or contract, and whether this method is effective for protecting the violated right. In this case, the plaintiff requested to cancel the decision of the state registrar and the records on ownership, and that
also to recognize her ownership of the land plot. However, the court found that at the time of the case’s consideration, the plot had already been sold to a third party. Therefore, in the court’s opinion, the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is not effective, as the cancellation of registration entries will not automatically return the property to the plaintiff’s ownership. An effective method of protection in such a situation would be a claim for recovery of property, i.e., reclaiming the property from another’s illegal possession from the last acquirer. Since the plaintiff did not assert claims against the third party for the recovery of property, the court concluded that her claims are not subject to satisfaction in the chosen manner.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances, indicating the ineffectiveness of the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff, but leaving the decision to dismiss the claim in force.
Case No. 583/702/21 dated 04/17/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and ruling regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for embezzlement of property and official forgery, where the defense insists on the absence of the elements of a crime and violations of procedural law.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances reasonably found PERSON_6 guilty of embezzlement of property and official forgery, based on a combination of evidence, including witness testimonies, inventory materials, and expert opinions. The court noted that voluntary compensation for damages does not exempt from criminal liability if the crime has already been committed, and the entry of false data into official documents constitutes official forgery, regardless of motives. Also, the court rejected the defense’s arguments about the need for separate registration of each episode of the crime in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations if they are covered by a single intent. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court properly assessed all the arguments of the appeal and reasonably upheld the verdict of the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and left the verdict and ruling of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 643/1656/17 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! Of course, I will help you with the analysis of this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the rulings of the previous instances in the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 for committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (minor bodily injuries).
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the previous instances remain unchanged. The full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the decision, will be announced later.
ise. Therefore, it is currently impossible to establish what arguments the court of cassation relied on when upholding the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the ruling of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6 unchanged, and her cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case №137/565/15-к dated 10/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, citing a number of violations of the criminal procedure law. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, namely the protocol of the scene examination conducted without the consent of the owner of the premises, and did not verify the authority of the investigator who conducted this investigative action. Also, the appellate court did not properly refute the defense’s version that the victim may have sustained bodily injuries under other circumstances, failing to assess the testimony of a witness who saw the victim with another person. In addition, the court of appeal did not suspend the proceedings in connection with the mobilization of the accused for military service, despite the evidence provided by the defense. Considering these violations, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court did not ensure a comprehensive and objective examination of the case, which casts doubt on the legality and validity of its decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, and also chose a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case №405/8493/21 dated 16/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of the criminal proceedings against a person accused of improper performance of professional duties by a medical worker, which resulted in the death of a child.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which closed the criminal proceedings, for the following reasons:
* The courts did not take into account the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC), introduced by Law № 3509-IX, which entered into force on January 1, 2024 and changed the procedure for calculating the terms of the pre-trial investigation.
* According to the new rules, the term of the pre-trial investigation is calculated from the moment a person is notified of suspicion until the day of appeal to the court with an indictment.
* In this case, the indictment was submitted to the court within the term of the pre-trial investigation, calculated from the moment the person was notified of suspicion.
* The courts of previous instances reached contradictory conclusions regarding the grounds for
… simultaneously indicating the expiration of the terms of pre-trial investigation both before and after the notice of suspicion.
* The courts mistakenly applied the provisions of the CPC regarding the approval of motions to extend the terms of pre-trial investigation, which led to an incorrect conclusion about the illegality of extending these terms.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the local and appellate courts and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
**Case No. 213/280/19 dated 04/01/2025**
Good day! Here is my analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the court of first instance regarding PERSON_8.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling. The justification for the decision likely took into account the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the illegality of the return of the appeal, possibly due to violations of procedural law by the appellate court. The court of cassation may have concluded that the appellate court unjustifiably refused to consider the prosecutor’s appeal, which could have led to a violation of the rights of the participants in the criminal proceedings. Also, circumstances may have been established that indicate the need to verify the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance by the appellate court. As a result, the cassation court decided that the appellate court should re-examine the prosecutor’s appeal on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the prosecutor’s appeal and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
**Case No. 910/3408/21 dated 04/22/2025**
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 Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the joint-stock company “Operator of the gas distribution system “Sumyhaz””.
2. In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances. The courts thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case and found that the AMCU’s decision was well-founded and lawful. The court noted that the AMCU acted within its powers defined by the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The court also took into account that “Sumyhaz” did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the AMCU’s findings. The judges also took into account previous decisions in similar cases, the practice of the AMCU, and European experience in the field of antimonopoly regulation. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and legal norms, the courts concluded that there were no grounds for granting the claim of “Sumyhaz”.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Sumyhaz” and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 732/962/24 dated 04/18/20**25
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement, initiated by the landowner due to the tenant’s systematic failure to pay rent.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance to terminate the lease agreement, reasoning that after the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the tenant, cases that may affect the bankrupt’s liquidation estate should be considered by the commercial court within the bankruptcy case. The court took into account the changes in land legislation that allow the tenant to alienate the lease right without the consent of the owner, which makes the lease right an asset that can be included in the liquidation estate. Since the termination of the lease agreement will affect the size of the bankrupt’s liquidation estate, the dispute is subject to consideration in the commercial court. The cassation court agreed with this decision, emphasizing that, taking into account the circumstances that have developed within the specific case (the implementation of the liquidation procedure against the debtor in the bankruptcy case), there are no grounds for satisfying the claims of the prosecutor’s claim, since the corresponding claim of the prosecutor’s claim, which the courts of previous instances did not pay attention to, is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the bankruptcy proceedings regarding the maximum satisfaction of the aggregate of creditors’ claims through alienation, at the highest possible price of the insolvent debtor’s property and the impossibility of satisfying the claims of an individual creditor outside the specific bankruptcy procedure.
3. The cassation court upheld the decision of the appellate court, confirming that the case is subject to consideration within the bankruptcy proceedings in the commercial court.
Case No. 522/3912/16-ц dated 03/05/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. In this case, the cassation court considered a dispute regarding the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, where the defendant (borrower) referred to the bank’s пропускання позовної давності. The court found that the terms of the loan agreement provided for a change in the term of performance of the obligation in case of overdue payments for more than 60 days, and such a term has occurred. Since the bank applied to the court outside the three-year statute of limitations, which began to be calculated from the moment of the changed term of performance of the obligation, the court concluded that it was necessary to refuse to satisfy the bank’s claims. The court of appeal did not take these circumstances into account, mistakenly believing that the statute of limitations had not been missed, since the defendant allegedly acted in bad faith, evading the fulfillment of obligations under the agreement.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to satisfy the bank’s claim for debt recovery
due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 215/3624/22 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of the man’s permanent residence with the testator at the time of the inheritance opening and the recognition of the right of ownership to monetary deposits in the order of inheritance by law.
2. The court found that the deceased’s husband actually lived with her as one family, which is legally significant for determining inheritance rights. Since the deceased and her husband were married, the court recognized the monetary deposits as their joint common property, where each owned 1/2 share. The court also took into account that in addition to the husband, there are two sons who are heirs of the first priority. One son filed an application for acceptance of the inheritance, and the other was registered at the same address as the deceased, therefore, he is considered to have accepted the inheritance. Considering this, the court of appeal changed the decision of the court of first instance and redistributed the shares of the inheritance property between the heirs, determining the share of the heirs as 1/3 each. The court of cassation agreed with this distribution, as it complies with the law and takes into account the interests of all heirs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 203/1905/22 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on securing the claim, which prohibited the bank and insurance companies from obstructing the execution of insurance contracts concluded through the bank.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that the measures taken by the court of first instance to secure the claim actually duplicate the claim requirements, as they are reduced to prohibiting improper performance of the terms of insurance contracts, which is unacceptable. The court noted that it cannot prohibit the bank from terminating business relations with insurance companies, as this violates the constitutional right to freedom of contract. Also, the court took into account that the consideration of the appeal concerned only the issue of securing the claim, and not the consideration of the case on the merits, therefore, the suspension of proceedings in connection with the third party’s stay in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not necessary. The court of cassation emphasized that the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and it has no authority to interfere in this evaluation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the resolution and ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 909/1056/15 dated 04/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to review the court ruling on the approval of amendments to the rehabilitation plan of the bankrupt enterprise based on newly discovered circumstances.
2.
The cassation court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to review the ruling on the approval of amendments to the rehabilitation plan, as the circumstances referred to by the applicant (the results of the review of the property valuation report) are not newly discovered within the meaning of the procedural law. The court noted that newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the case consideration, be unknown to the applicant, and be of significant importance to the case, i.e., such that could affect the court’s decision. In this case, the review of the property valuation report is new evidence, not a newly discovered circumstance, and cannot be the basis for reviewing the decision. Also, the court emphasized that the review of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances does not involve a re-evaluation of evidence that has already been evaluated by the court. Furthermore, the applicant did not prove how the deficiencies in the property valuation report affected the implementation of the rehabilitation plan and violated his rights as a creditor. The court also took into account that the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated due to the restoration of the debtor’s solvency.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 331/2385/19 dated 04/08/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the appellate court’s judgment, which overturned the acquittal verdict of the court of first instance and found the person guilty of selling psychotropic substances.
The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance, justifying it by the fact that the court of first instance incorrectly assessed the evidence, in particular, the testimony of the witness, and did not take into account all the circumstances of the case. The appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, considered the fact of the sale of psychotropic substances proven. It is important that the appellate court did not question the witness personally, but only re-evaluated his previous testimony. In the cassation appeal, the convicted person argued that the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law by not questioning the witness personally and giving his testimony a different assessment than the court of first instance. Also, according to the convicted person, the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence regarding possible provocation by law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, agreed with the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of the criminal procedure law.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
**Case No. 910/9652/23 dated 04/17/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from an individual entrepreneur (IE) that a limited liability company (LLC) paid for the use of property under a lease agreement that was declared void.
2. S
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the legal nature of lease relations and the circumstances established by them regarding the actual use of the property by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court noted that the actual use of property under a lease agreement, even if it is invalid, makes it impossible to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, since the use of the property is irreversible. The court also pointed to the plaintiff’s violation of the principle of contradictory behavior, since he used the property, paid for it, and then demanded a refund, citing the nullity of the contract. The court emphasized that in such a case, the enrichment of the plaintiff himself due to the use of the defendant’s property should be taken into account, and therefore the funds are not subject to recovery from the defendant. In addition, the court noted that the return of real estate is carried out not by applying restitution, but through a negatory action.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and issued a new decision to dismiss the LLC’s claim against the individual entrepreneur for the recovery of funds.
Case No. 903/1199/23 dated April 8, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of creditors (PERSON_1, Individual Entrepreneur Demyanovych A.V., Private Enterprise “Company Gloria”) to the debtor (LLC “Econiva”) in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the following:
* Regarding the claims of PERSON_1: The creditor did not provide sufficient evidence (payment documents) to confirm the timely transfer of funds to the debtor, and did not prove the impossibility of submitting this evidence to the court of first instance for objective reasons. Also, the arguments about the inappropriate composition of the court that signed the appellate court’s decision were not confirmed, since the electronic signature of the absent judge was replaced by an authorized person in accordance with the internal order of the court.
* Regarding the claims of Private Enterprise “Company Gloria”: The creditor did not provide sufficient evidence, other than the lease agreement and acceptance certificates, to confirm the reality of the business transaction. The court also took into account that the amount of the claimed claims (UAH 1,375,000) differed from the amount recognized by the court of first instance (UAH 1,650,000), without proper justification for the increase in claims.
* Regarding the claims of Individual Entrepreneur Demyanovych A.V.: The court took into account the partial payment by the debtor for the services provided (UAH 200,000), which confirms the reality of the business transaction. Although the bank statement confirming the payment was provided by LLC “Kamyanka-Buzky Feed Mill” at the stage of appeal review, this is not a violation, since LLC “Kamyanka-Buzky Feed Mill” is a creditor and has the right to object to the claims of other creditors.
3. The court of cassation decided to dismiss the cassation appeals of PERSON_1, Individual Entrepreneur Demyanovych A.V.
