**Case No. 990/185/24 dated 27/03/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice to dismiss the application regarding the violation of incompatibility requirements by a judge in retirement.
2. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that, according to the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, the HCJ decides on the dismissal of a judge who has violated the requirements for incompatibility. Dismissal can only be applied to a sitting judge who holds a full-time position and administers justice on a professional basis. Since the judge is already in retirement, dismissal from office cannot be applied to him. Also, violation of incompatibility requirements is not a basis for termination of a judge’s retirement. The court emphasized that the HCJ acted within its powers, as provided for by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, and that the applied legal norms do not contradict the Constitution. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the need to take into account American experience, as they are not based on the norms of Ukrainian legislation.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
**Case No. 160/20631/23 dated 23/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the Territorial Office of the State Bureau of Investigation (TO SBI) regarding the failure to accrue and pay compensation to a person who resigned from the SBI for unused days of annual and additional leave for previous years (2021-2022).
2. The cassation court agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the person’s claim. The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Bureau of Investigation” does not contain special provisions regarding compensation for unused leave for past years upon dismissal, and the Regulations on Service in the SBI (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 743) do not provide for the cancellation of unused leave and do not deprive the right to compensation for them. The court emphasized that the provisions of labor legislation (the Labor Code and the Law of Ukraine “On Leave”) guarantee the payment of compensation for all unused days of annual leave, as well as additional leave for employees who have children. Also, the court took into account the constitutional right to rest and the need to interpret legal uncertainty in favor of the employee. The court indicated that the absence of clear regulation in special legislation allows the application of general norms of labor legislation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the TO SBI and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the obligation to pay the person compensation for unused leave for 2021 and 2022.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834045](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834045)
**Case No. 910/17001/23 dated 04/24/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by the defendant in a case concerning the recognition of the absence of a right and the invalidation of a contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which had denied the defendant’s application for the distribution of court costs, reasoning that the costs of legal assistance did not meet the criterion of reality, since the defendant’s manager independently represented the company’s interests in court, while having attorney status at the time of most procedural actions. The court also noted that the costs associated with property valuation are not subject to reimbursement, as they were not directly related to the subject of the dispute and did not affect the court’s decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the criterion of reasonable necessity of expenses for professional legal assistance is an evaluative category, which is assessed by the court based on a comprehensive examination of the evidence, and the appellant’s disagreement with the court’s assessment is not a basis for overturning court decisions. Also, the court of cassation referred to the principle of res judicata, emphasizing the need to respect final court decisions and the inadmissibility of their review solely for the purpose of re-examining the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803002](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803002)
**Case No. 446/2980/23 dated 04/18/2025**
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for recognition of marriage as invalid, filed by the plaintiff, who claimed that the marriage was fictitious and entered into without the intention of creating a family.
2. The court of first instance dismissed the claim, reasoning that there was no sufficient evidence of the fictitious nature of the marriage. The appellate court agreed with this decision, noting that the long period of time that had passed since the registration of the marriage did not confirm that the parties had never lived as spouses. The plaintiff appealed these decisions, arguing that the court of first instance did not notify her of the date of the last court hearing, which deprived her of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the failure to notify her of the court hearing, which is a violation of procedural rights. The court emphasized that consideration of the case in the absence of a properly notified participant is an unconditional ground for overturning the decision.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803017](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803017)
**Case No. 545/3933/21 dated 04/16/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed
and analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the father’s claim for the removal of the child from the mother to return her to her previous place of residence in Great Britain.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, arguing that the Ukrainian courts do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. The court noted that since there is a current decision of the Ukrainian court on the return of the child to Great Britain, but it has not been enforced, any issues related to the child’s place of residence should be resolved by the competent authorities of Great Britain. The court referred to the provisions of the Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility of 1996, which stipulates that in the case of illegal relocation of a child, jurisdiction over issues of his/her protection remains with the authorities of the state where the child resided before the relocation. Also, the court took into account the conclusion of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, according to which, in the presence of a decision on the return of the child, Ukrainian courts do not have the right to determine his/her place of residence without the consent of the competent authority of the foreign state.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 580/4326/20 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax assessment notice regarding the application of penalties for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation found that the enterprise violated the terms of registration of tax invoices, which became the basis for the application of penalties. At the same time, the court drew attention to the changes in the Tax Code introduced by Law No. 466-IX, which provide for the retrospective effect of the provisions on reducing the amount of fines for violation of tax invoice registration, in particular, for those that are not provided to the buyer. The court emphasized that these changes should be applied to fines accrued from January 1, 2017, until the date Law No. 466-IX came into force, if the relevant tax assessment notices are in the process of appeal and have not been paid. The court noted that the recalculation of the amount of the fine is within the competence of the tax authority, and the court can only establish the legality of the additional assessment and the existence of grounds for applying the retrospective rule. Since the courts of previous instances did not take into account these changes in legislation, the case requires a new hearing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance.
Case No. 400/4920/24 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: Is the refusal of the Main Directorate of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Mykolaiv O
to oblige to conduct indexation of the pension of PERSON_1 using the coefficient of increase of the average salary (income) indicator in Ukraine.
Arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, emphasizing that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not have the authority to establish a basic calculation value for pension indexation, as this contradicts the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”. The court emphasized that indexation should be carried out by increasing the indicator of the average salary (income) in Ukraine, which was directly taken into account when calculating the pension. The court noted that the provisions of Procedure No. 124, which contradict the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, are not subject to application. At the same time, the court took into account the terms of applying to the court, established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and protected the plaintiff’s rights only within the six-month period before applying to the court. The court also took into account that the indexation was not actually accrued to the plaintiff, therefore there are no grounds for applying the rule regarding the non-limitation by any term of the amount of pension unpaid to the pensioner.
Court decision: The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and issued a new decision on the partial satisfaction of the claim, recognizing the refusal to index the pension as illegal and obliging to recalculate and pay the pension taking into account the established coefficients, but only for the period not exceeding the six-month period before applying to the court.
Case No. 240/9272/23 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from an individual, which arose as a result of non-payment of personal income tax and military duty declared in tax returns.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the taxpayer is obliged to pay taxes and fees in the prescribed terms and amounts. The court emphasized that the tax debt arose due to non-payment of agreed monetary obligations specified in tax returns, and the controlling body rightfully applied to the court to recover these funds. The court also took into account that at the time of the tax debt occurrence, the current legislation did not require mandatory provision of a detailed calculation of the debt amount together with the tax demand. In addition, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding force majeure circumstances, such as health condition and difficult financial situation, as they are not grounds for exemption from paying tax debt. The court also noted that the erroneous indication of the defendant’s status as “private entrepreneur” is not a basis for refusing the claim, as this issue concerns the procedure for executing the decision. The court also took into account
regarding the suspension of the statute of limitations due to quarantine and martial law, and concluded that the tax authority did not miss the deadline for appealing to the court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the legality of the tax debt collection.
[**Case No. 260/131/24 dated April 23, 2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126819374)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the military unit’s refusal to accrue and pay the plaintiff compensation for the delay in the payment of monthly monetary allowance.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances dismissed the claim, considering that the plaintiff missed the six-month deadline for appealing to the court established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter – CAPU), since he learned about the violation of his right back in 2021, when he received the payment of arrears of monetary allowance. The courts considered that receiving a letter from the military unit in 2023 did not change the moment when the plaintiff should have learned about the violation of his rights. Instead, the Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, pointing out that compensation for the delay in the payment of monetary allowance is a component of wages, and therefore the provisions of the Labor Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – LCU) should be applied to the disputed legal relations. The Supreme Court took into account that the payment of arrears took place in 2021, when the version of the LCU that did not limit the term for appealing to the court in cases on recovery of wages was still in force. **:** The court departed from the previous position regarding the deadlines for appealing to the court in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
[**Case No. 160/12189/24 dated April 23, 2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126819372)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the customs office to adjust the customs value of porcelain dishes imported by NTS-PARTNER LLC.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, as the customs office did not prove the existence of discrepancies or inaccuracies in the documents submitted by the company. The appellate court overturned this decision, considering that the company did not prove the reality of the declared customs value, and the customs office provided sufficient evidence for the application of the reserve method of determining the customs value, in particular, referring to higher prices for similar goods. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, noting that the company had provided all the necessary documents stipulated by the Customs Code to confirm the customs value at the contract price. The court also pointed out that the customs office did not substantiate how the discrepancies it identified affect the numerical values of the customs value. The Supreme Court emphasized that the customs office did not prove the lawfulness of its decision.
regarding the adjustment of customs value, and the appellate court formally applied the norms of law, without taking into account the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, satisfying the company’s claims.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803003](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803003) **Case No. 359/9058/24 dated 04/18/2025**
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was an application for a restraining order against the former wife, filed by the father in the interests of a minor child, who claimed psychological and economic violence against the child.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to grant the application, reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of the mother’s violence against the son, and there were no risks of continuation or repeated commission of domestic violence. The appellate court also noted that reference to an emergency restraining order issued three years ago is not sufficient evidence at the time of the case. In addition, the courts of previous instances referred to the emergency restraining order issued against the mother as evidence in the case, although the subject of proof in this case is the fact that the mother committed violence against the child. The issue of the mother’s violence against the father is not part of the facts of substantive legal significance necessary to resolve this case on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal and amended the decisions of the previous instances, excluding from the reasoning parts the mention of the previously issued emergency restraining order against the mother.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834024](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834024) **Case No. 915/817/24 dated 04/24/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Regional Office of Water Resources in the Mykolaiv region in favor of the State Enterprise of Foreign Economic Activity “Ukrinterenergo” of debt for supplied electricity, as well as accrued 15% per annum and inflationary losses.
2. The court granted the claim, based on the fact that contractual relations for the supply of electricity actually arose between the parties, since the Regional Office consumed electricity supplied by the State Enterprise as the “last resort” supplier. The court emphasized that the contract is public, and the fact of electricity consumption is an acceptance of the contract. The court also noted that the State Enterprise duly informed the Regional Office about the terms of the contract, in particular, by sending invoices to the email address, which corresponds to the terms of the commercial offer. Since the Regional Office violated the terms of payment, the court recognized the accrual of 15% per annum and inflationary losses provided for by the terms of the contract and current legislation as lawful. The court rejected the arguments of the Region
of the Regional Office regarding the price inconsistency, as these objections were not raised in the court of first instance.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 910/1539/21 (910/7148/22) dated 24/04/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to close the appellate proceedings on the complaint of Timecoll LLC against the decision of the court of first instance to invalidate the assignment of claim agreements in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, reasoning that the appellate court rightfully closed the appellate proceedings because Timecoll LLC’s arguments had already been considered in previous appellate proceedings on the complaint of another party (ZV Realty LLC) and were evaluated by the court, and a repeated review of these issues violates the principle of legal certainty. The court noted that the purpose of Article 272 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine is to prevent the repeated review of a court decision based on reasons that have already been considered. The court also pointed out that although Article 264 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine does not explicitly provide for the closure of “erroneously opened” proceedings, in this case, the closure of proceedings is justified in order not to violate the principle of a “court established by law.” The court of cassation emphasized that in order to consider an appeal filed after the completion of the appellate review, it is necessary to establish whether these arguments have already been considered during the previous appellate review.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Timecoll LLC and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
**Case No. 924/971/23 dated 16/04/2025**
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the gift agreement as invalid and the cancellation of the state registration of the property transferred under this agreement.
2. In this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Charitable Organization “Charitable Foundation “Revival of Khmelnytskyi Region”. The court reversed the appellate court’s decision in the part concerning the recognition of the gift agreement as invalid, leaving the decision of the court of first instance in force, but with a new wording of the reasoning part. Regarding the claim for cancellation of state registration, the appellate decision was amended, also with a new wording of the reasoning part. The court decided to recover from the Communist Party of Ukraine to the benefit of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine the court fee for filing the claim and appeal. At the same time, compensation for filing a cassation appeal was recovered from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to the benefit of the Charitable Organization “Charitable Foundation “Revival of Khmelnytskyi Region”.
of the cassation appeal.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court and partially upholding the decision of the court of first instance, and also redistributed court costs between the parties.
Case No. 990/34/25 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Verkhovna Rada, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers and the State Statistics Service regarding the establishment of a living wage and an inflation index, which, according to the plaintiff, do not correspond to the real level of prices and the needs of citizens.
2. The court of cassation returned the statement of claim, motivating it by the fact that it combines several claims that are subject to different courts, namely: claims against the Verkhovna Rada and the President are subject to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance, and claims against the Cabinet of Ministers and the State Statistics Service are subject to other courts. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with this, noting that the CAS of Ukraine prohibits combining into one proceeding claims for which exclusive jurisdiction is determined for different courts. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument about the violation of the right to judicial protection, since the return of the claim does not deprive the right to re-appeal to the court, taking into account the circumstances that became the basis for the return. The court also explained that it is impossible to replace the initial defendants with the proper ones, as this will lead to a change in the jurisdiction of the case.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 990/48/25 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the provisions of the Law of Ukraine, which abolished the category of “partially fit” for military service.
2. The court of first instance refused to open proceedings, motivating it by the fact that the dispute is not public-legal, since it concerns the legislative activity of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU), which, according to the court, does not perform public-administrative functions in the process of law-making. The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that cases regarding appeals against acts of the VRU are subject to the Supreme Court as a court of first instance, and that the court of first instance did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of “power-administrative functions”. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, considering the appeal, supported the position of the court of first instance, noting that only those acts of the VRU that were adopted in legal relations where the VRU exercises its power (administrative) functions can be appealed in the procedure of administrative proceedings. The court emphasized that legislative activity is not the performance of power administrative functions, and that the question of compliance withof the Laws of the Constitution of Ukraine falls within the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The court also noted that the provisions of Article 266 of the CAS of Ukraine clearly define that only resolutions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine are subject to appeal, and not all its acts, including laws.
3. The court decided to leave the appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the court of first instance – without changes.
Case No. 543/331/23 dated 21/04/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of decisions on state registration of rights and their encumbrances.
2. The court dismissed the claim without consideration, because the plaintiff, duly notified of the court hearings, did not appear in court twice in a row. The court noted that according to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine), repeated non-appearance of the plaintiff is the basis for leaving the claim without consideration, regardless of the reasons for non-appearance, if no statement was filed to consider the case in the absence of the plaintiff. The court also emphasized that the procedural law does not require taking into account the validity of the reasons for repeated non-appearance. The appellate court agreed with this decision, stating that the plaintiff’s representative never appeared in court for six months and did not file a motion to consider the case in his absence, which led to the delay in the consideration of the case. The Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of previous instances, noting that only proper notification of the plaintiff about the time and place of the case consideration, repeated non-appearance, and the absence of a statement to consider the case in the absence of the plaintiff are of legal significance.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 917/1281/24 dated 22/04/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the appeal of the decision of the “Poltavaoblenergo” commission on the violation of the Rules of the Retail Electricity Market (RREEM) by an individual who is not an entrepreneur.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the dispute is not subject to resolution in the order of economic (commercial) court proceedings. The court proceeded from the fact that the subject composition (participants of the dispute) and the nature of the disputed legal relations are important for determining jurisdiction. In this case, the plaintiff (individual) applied to “Poltavaoblenergo” as an electricity consumer, and not as a business entity. The court noted that the fact of possible use of property for entrepreneurial activity does not change the fact that the plaintiff acquired ownership of it as an individual. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff is not registered as a Private Entrepreneur, and the agreement with oblenergo was concluded by her as an individual. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of the status of a Private Entrepreneur
P does not mean that a person acts as an entrepreneur in all legal relations.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the closure of proceedings in the case unchanged.
Case No. 521/19522/16-ц dated 04/18/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and the recognition of the loan and mortgage agreements as invalid.
2. The court of cassation partially disagreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of interest and penalties under the loan agreement. The court noted that after sending a demand for early repayment of the loan, the bank lost the right to accrue interest for the use of the loan, provided for by the agreement, as well as penalties, since there was a change in the term of fulfillment of the obligation. The court of first instance did not properly establish exactly when the term for repayment of the loan occurred, taking into account the date of receipt of the demand by the borrower, and the evidence available in the case file does not allow the cassation court to reliably determine the amount of debt for accrued interest and penalties. Regarding the principal amount of the debt, the courts of previous instances correctly concluded that it should be recovered, since the defendant did not provide evidence that would refute the calculation of the debt.
3. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part regarding the recovery of interest and penalties, sending the case for a new trial to the court of appeal, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 990/228/23 dated 03/20/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on enacting the decision of the National Security and Defense Council regarding the application of personal sanctions against her.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the President acted within the limits of his powers by enacting the decision of the National Security and Defense Council on sanctions, since this was necessary to protect the national interests and security of Ukraine. The court emphasized that sanctions are not a punishment, but a preventive measure, and their application is based on an assessment of risks to national security, and not on proving the guilt of a person. The court noted that it cannot replace the President in assessing threats, but can verify compliance with the limits of discretion and the procedure for imposing sanctions. Also, the court indicated that the interference with the plaintiff’s property right is proportionate, since it has a legitimate aim and does not deprive him of the property right, but only temporarily restricts its implementation. The court rejected the arguments about the bias of the judge, since the plaintiff did not file a challenge during the consideration of the case.
3. The court dismissed the appeal.
and the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Case No. 990/85/24 dated 03/20/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: Appealing the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to refuse to recommend the appointment of a judge.
Main arguments of the court:
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized as lawful the decision of the HQCJ to refuse to recommend PERSON_1 for the position of judge. The court emphasized that the HQCJ has discretionary powers in assessing the candidate’s compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics. The court noted that the Commission’s conclusions were not arbitrary or irrational, but were supported by evidence and based on an analysis of errors and inaccuracies in the candidate’s declaration and questionnaire. In particular, it concerned discrepancies in information regarding military registration, declaration of property, and membership in the National Bar Association of Ukraine. The court also took into account the circumstances of the plaintiff’s residence in the temporarily occupied territory. The court emphasized that the candidate must be attentive to the disclosure of information and consistent in adhering to legal norms, and the Commission has the right to assess these aspects through the prism of integrity criteria.
Court decision: The appeal of PERSON_1 was dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Case No. 910/12559/20 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closing of appellate proceedings on the complaint of JSC “Dniproazot” against the decision of the court of first instance in the case of recognizing the termination of obligations of JSC “Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant” to JSC CB “PrivatBank”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which closed the appellate proceedings, since JSC “Dniproazot” was not a party to the case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not directly concern the rights, interests, or obligations of this company. The court noted that for a person who did not participate in the case to appeal the decision, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly resolves the issue of their rights, interests, or obligations, and this connection must be obvious and unconditional. The mention of JSC “Dniproazot” in the American lawsuit, which appeared in the case file, is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the decision of the court of first instance concerns the rights of this company. The court also emphasized that the right to access to justice is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions established by procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Dniproazot”.
Case No. 460/10731/24 dated 2025/04/18
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: Recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the commission on termination (abolition) of civil service regarding PERSON_1 and reinstatement in the position.
Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the plaintiff’s claim. The courts found that the order to dismiss the plaintiff was issued in violation of the procedure established by law, in particular, without obtaining the prior consent of the trade union body. The court emphasized that non-compliance with the procedure for dismissal entails the illegality of such dismissal, even if there are grounds for it. The court also noted that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that it was impossible to employ the employee in another position in the same state body, as required by law.
Court decision: The cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Lviv region was dismissed, the decision of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv dated November 27, 2023, and the decision of the Lviv Appellate Court dated February 27, 2024, were left unchanged.
3/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s right to recalculate a disability pension related to the Chornobyl disaster, in the amount of at least six minimum old-age pensions, in accordance with Article 54 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chornobyl Disaster” as amended in 1996.
The court of cassation upheld the position that the 1996 version of Article 54 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chornobyl Disaster” should be applied to resolve this dispute, which provided for the payment of a pension of at least six minimum old-age pensions for Group III disabled persons related to the Chornobyl disaster. The court took into account that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional the provision that allowed the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to determine the minimum amounts of such pensions, and that the amendments introduced by Law No. 1584-IX do not ensure an adequate level of social protection for Chornobyl victims. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s request to oblige the defendant to pay the pension in the future is a claim for the future and is not subject to satisfaction, since at the time of the case consideration, the plaintiff’s right in this part had not yet been violated. The court referred to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which considered similar legal relations, and confirmed that the adoption of Law No. 1584-IX does not achieve the minimum guarantees in the field of social protection of persons affected by the Chornobyl disaster.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claim, recognizing as unlawful the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the failure to accrue and pay the pension in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court, and ordering a recalculation of the pension, but refused to satisfy the claim for payment of the pension in such amount in the future.
Case No. 160/15997/24 dated 23/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk Region to index the plaintiff’s pension in 2023 and 2024 using the appropriate increase coefficients.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that according to current legislation, pension indexation should be carried out by increasing the indicator of the average wage (income) in Ukraine, from which insurance contributions were paid, which was directly taken into account for calculating the pension at the time of its award, and not as of October 1, 2017, as provided for by Procedure No. 124. The court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not have the authority to establish a basic calculation value, as this negates the main purpose of indexation – tomaintenance of a sufficient standard of living for citizens. Also, the court took into account the terms of appeal to the court, noting that the right to indexation of pension is not absolute and the protection of this right may be limited by the term of appeal to the court. Considering that the plaintiff applied to the court on June 19, 2024, her rights can only be protected from December 19, 2023, i.e., within a six-month period.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and issued a new decision, which partially satisfied the claims, recognizing the refusal to conduct pension indexation from December 19, 2023, as illegal and obliging to recalculate and pay the pension taking into account the relevant coefficients, and left the claims for the period from March 01, 2023, to December 18, 2023, without consideration.
Case No. 766/6952/23 dated 04/21/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of theft committed on a large scale (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
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 verdict of the appellate court was upheld. For a complete analysis, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling, which will state the motives that guided the Supreme Court in rejecting the defense counsel’s cassation appeal. Without the full text, it is impossible to understand whether the court agreed with the assessment of the evidence, whether the norms of substantive and procedural law were correctly applied, and whether all the essential circumstances of the case were taken into account. It is also unknown whether the court deviates from any previous legal position.
3. The Supreme Court decided to uphold the verdict of the Kherson Court of Appeal, and dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 500/2045/24 dated 04/23/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order of disciplinary action in the form of a warning of incomplete official compliance applied to a patrol police officer.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the police officer’s appeal due to failure to rectify the deficiencies. The appellate court considered that the police officer had not provided evidence of sending a copy of the appeal to the defendant. The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellant had made a mistake by indicating an incorrect identification code of the defendant, due to which the electronic copy of the complaint was not sent to the “Electronic Cabinet” of the required body. The court of appeal did not pay attention to this and did not indicate this in the ruling on leaving the complaint without movement, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to effectively eliminate the deficiencies. The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of a
compliance with procedural rules must be reasonable and not lead to excessive formalism that violates the right to access to justice. The court also noted that ensuring appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of justice, and excessive formalism may contradict the requirements of ensuring a practical and effective right to access to justice.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal and overturned the appellate court’s ruling, sending the case back to the appellate court for a new hearing.
**Case No. 911/1637/24 dated 04/23/2025**
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 appellate commercial court to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of the State Enterprise “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna” based on the application of the Farm Enterprise “Kyrychok”.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the SE “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna”, overturning the appellate court’s decision and upholding the decision of the court of first instance, which refused to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case. In fact, the court of cassation supported the position of the SE “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna”, finding no grounds for opening proceedings in its bankruptcy case. Also, the court decided to recover from the Farm Enterprise “Kyrychok” in favor of the SE “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna” court costs associated with the payment of the court fee for filing the cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to open proceedings in the bankruptcy case of the SE “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna”, and also recovered court costs from the FE “Kyrychok” in favor of the SE “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna”.
**Case No. 911/65/24 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 from the limited liability company of a share contribution to the development of the city’s infrastructure, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation found that, according to the law, the construction client is obliged to pay a share contribution to the development of the settlement’s infrastructure. The amount of the share contribution is determined either as a percentage of the total estimated cost of construction, or, if a smaller amount is established by a decision of the local self-government body, then in accordance with this decision. In this case, the appellate court applied the decision of the Bila Tserkva City Council, which established a smaller amount of share contribution than provided by law. However, the appellate court did not substantiate the application of this particular decision, since the act of readiness of the object for operation contains the estimated cost of construction. In addition, the appellate court did not analyze and did not
indicated in the ruling the components of the formula by which the amount of the equity participation was calculated. Considering that the key is the establishment of the amount of equity participation, the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court committed a violation of the norms of procedural law, which led to an incomplete establishment of the circumstances of the case.
3. 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. 906/145/24 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the joint-stock company “Zhytomyroblenergo”.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the decision of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and satisfied the cassation appeal against the additional ruling of the appellate court. The court of cassation overturned the additional ruling of the appellate court, adopting a new decision to refuse the satisfaction of the application of the joint-stock company “Zhytomyroblenergo” for the recovery of court costs. The motives that the Supreme Court was guided by when making such a decision are not indicated in the introductory and operative parts of the ruling, so it is impossible to analyze them. A full text of the court decision is necessary for a complete analysis.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the additional ruling of the appellate court and refused to recover court costs from the Entrepreneur in favor of the Company.
Case No. 910/3690/24 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! Of course, I will help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Uzelectro” in favor of JSC “Ukrainian Railway” of the amount of advance payment, fine and penalty, accrued on this advance payment.
2. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appeal of the fine and penalty, since the appellant justified the cassation appeal only by paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (incorrect application of the norms of substantive law), which is not sufficient for reviewing decisions on the recovery of penalties, the amount of which is less than the threshold established by law. At the same time, the court partially satisfied the cassation appeal regarding the recovery of the amount of the advance payment. The court of cassation indicated that the appellate court groundlessly changed the decision of the court of first instance in the part of the recovery of the advance payment, since it did not provide a proper assessment of the circumstances of the case and the evidence that confirmed the defendant’s obligation to return the received advance payment due to non-fulfillment of the terms of the contract. Thus, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court in this part and upheld the decision of the commercial court of first instance. Also, the court decided to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the costs of paying the court fee for filing a cassation
of cassation appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling regarding the recovery of advance payment and upheld the first instance court’s decision to recover UAH 49,778,703.13 of advance payment from “Uzelectro” LLC in favor of “Ukrainian Railway” JSC.
Case No. 500/1753/23 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Western Office of the State Audit Service to the Ternopil City Council to eliminate violations discovered during the audit of the purchase of sleeping bags from “Fast Factory” LLC.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, considering the State Audit Service’s demand unfounded, as “Fast Factory” LLC provided a certificate of conformity that is valid and not disputed, and the absence of a quality certificate does not indicate the poor quality of the goods. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that the certificate of conformity is not a document that confirms the quality of the goods, and that the marking of the sleeping bags does not meet the established requirements. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision, emphasized that the quality of the goods is confirmed not only by the quality certificate but also by other documents, including the certificate of conformity issued by the authorized body. The court also took into account that the specification to the contract did not contain specific requirements for the quality of the goods, and the provided certificate of conformity confirmed that the sleeping bags met the requirements of DSTU EN 13537:2008. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the State Audit Service did not prove that the identified violations led to the misuse of budget funds or caused damage to the budget, and the demand for the replacement of the goods is disproportionate.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, recognizing the State Audit Service’s demand as unlawful and canceling it.
Case No. 9901/178/21 dated 04/22/2025
Certainly, here is the analysis of the court decision, as I promised.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by “GEO STENS” LLC against the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part that the plaintiff considers unlawful.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, leaving the decision of the court of first instance unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the President acted within his powers defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. The court took into account the interests of national security and defense, which were referred to by the National Security and Defense Council and the Security Service of Ukraine, justifying the need for the adoption of the Decree. The court also took into account that the appealed Decree was adopted on the basis of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council, which, in turn, was based on the analysis of information indicating a threat to national security. The court noted that interference with the President’s discretionary powers is possible only in case of obvious illegality, which was not established in this case. The court also took into account that “GEO STENS” LLC
“GEO STENS” did not provide sufficient evidence of the violation of its rights and interests as a result of the issuance of the Decree.
3. The court decided to leave the appeal of “GEO STENS” LLC without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of first instance – without changes.
**Case No. 520/11739/24 dated 04/23/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service regarding the calculation and payment of monetary allowance and one-time financial assistance upon dismissal to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* The courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the three-month period for applying to the court, provided for by Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine as amended since 07/19/2022, since the disputed legal relations arose in the period before this date.
* Prior to 07/19/2022, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine did not limit the period for applying to the court with a claim for the recovery of wages due to the employee, which is confirmed by the practice of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
* The Chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court in case No. 460/21394/23 (resolution of 03/21/2025) concluded that the amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine do not apply to legal relations that arose before 07/19/2022.
* Since the disputed payments are related to the dismissal of the plaintiff from service before 07/19/2022, they are not subject to restrictions regarding the term of appeal to the court.
* The court of cassation agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that he complied with the terms of appeal to the court and that there were no grounds for leaving the statement of claim without consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
**Case No. 199/8074/23 dated 04/15/2025**
Good day! Let’s consider this court decision in detail.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which resulted in moderate bodily injury).
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the proof of guilt of PERSON_7. The court noted that the conclusions about guilt are based on a combination of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, data from the protocols of inspection of the scene of the accident, and the conclusions of examinations. The court rejected the defender’s arguments about inconsistencies in determining the location of the accident, stating that the courts carefully examined these circumstances. The court also disagreed with the arguments about the violation of the right to defense, since the defense had the opportunity to collect evidence and file motions. Regarding the civil claim, the court emphasized that the amount of compensation for moral damage in
designated taking into account the depth of the physical and mental suffering of the victim. The court also found the imposition of punishment in the form of a fine justified, considering the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person.
3. The court ruled: to leave the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal of November 14, 2024, regarding PERSON_7 unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 638/3742/23 dated April 21, 2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal in cassation proceedings regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 for attempted premeditated murder (Part 2 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. The court does not provide specific arguments in the operative part as to why it made this decision. However, the fact that a new trial has been ordered may indicate that the court found certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court, which could have affected the legality and validity of its decision. Also, the Supreme Court imposed a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention for 60 days. This may indicate that the court took into account certain risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, such as the possibility of hiding from the investigation and the court, committing other criminal offenses, or obstructing criminal proceedings. The imposition of a preventive measure in the form of detention emphasizes the seriousness of the charge and the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that PERSON_7 may evade justice.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and also imposed a preventive measure on the accused in the form of detention.
Case No. 916/407/24 dated April 22, 2025
Good day! Let’s take a closer look at this additional ruling of the Supreme Court.
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for an additional decision on the allocation of court costs incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
2. The court partially granted the application, reasoning that, in accordance with the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the costs of professional legal assistance are subject to allocation between the parties in proportion to the satisfied claims. The court took into account the validity and proportionality of the claimed expenses, as well as the actual amount of legal assistance provided at the stage of cassation appeal. Considering these circumstances, the court decided to recover part of the costs of legal assistance in the amount of UAH 10,000 from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to satisfy the rest of the claims. The court proceeded from the principles of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality in the allocation
and court costs.
3. The court ruled to recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 10,000 of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case, and denied the rest of the application.
Case No. 916/938/22 dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement of communal property, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, is an object of cultural heritage, and the return of this property to the territorial community.
The court of cassation did not agree with the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, arguing that the prosecutor incorrectly identified the plaintiffs in the case, namely the Odesa City Council and the Department of Communal Property, which themselves allowed violations during the conclusion of the lease agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the prosecutor, in addition to recognizing the lease agreement as invalid, also demanded the return of the property, and the defendant should be the person at whose expense the claims can be satisfied, that is, the lessee. The court also noted that the courts did not assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding violations of legislation on the protection of cultural heritage during the transfer of property for lease.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 917/751/23 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Ukrtatnafta” in favor of JSC “Ukrtransnafta” of UAH 3,053,137,652.03 of debt arising from improper performance of the terms of the oil storage service agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which partially satisfied the claim of JSC “Ukrtransnafta.” The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant confirmed the fact of loss of oil transferred for storage and offered the plaintiff compensation for its value. Also, according to the terms of the storage agreement, the defendant undertook to reimburse the value of the oil in case of its loss. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the need for an expert examination, as it considered that the circumstances of the case were established on the basis of available evidence. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the improper method of protection chosen by the plaintiff, since the defendant confirmed the fact of oil loss, which entitles the plaintiff to demand compensation for its value. The court indicated that the behavior of the defendant, who initially acknowledged the loss of oil and offered compensation, and then denied it in court, is contradictory and unacceptable.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrtatnafta” and to uphold the decisions of the previous courts.
<a href=”https://reyestr.court.gov
