Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 01/05/2025

Case №910/10935/24 dated 04/23/2025
Good day! Here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturning the decisions of previous instances regarding the suspension of the order of the Ministry of Justice. The court proceeded from the fact that the applicants did not duly prove the justification for the need to apply such a measure to secure the claim as the suspension of the order, and its proportionality with the stated claims. The court noted that the suspension of the order may lead to a violation of the rights and interests of other persons who are not parties to the case. Also, the court took into account that the failure to take measures to secure the claim will not lead to the impossibility of restoring the rights of the plaintiffs in case the claim is satisfied. In other part, the ruling of the court of first instance and the постанову [resolution/ruling] of the appellate court were left unchanged. The court also distributed the court costs, assigning them to the plaintiffs.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances regarding the suspension of the order of the Ministry of Justice and refused to satisfy the application for securing the claim in this part, and in other part left the decisions unchanged.

Case №754/16786/23 dated 04/03/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as promised.

1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, arguing that the imposed sentence of 9 years of imprisonment is not manifestly unfair, considering the severity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, and data about the identity of the convicted person. The court noted that the appellate court properly verified the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the leniency of the punishment and reasonably rejected them. Also, the cassation court emphasized that it cannot investigate evidence and establish new circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances. The court did not take into account the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the non-admission of guilt, since this is the right of the accused, not an obligation. Regarding the arguments about the commission of domestic violence, the court noted that this was not established by the courts of previous instances, therefore it cannot be taken into account.

3. The court ruled to uphold the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the prosecutor.

Case №732/760/24 dated 04/22/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement, initiated by the new owner (heir) due to the presence of a corresponding condition in the agreement, while the lessee is in a state of bankruptcy.

2. The court of cassation
of the first instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which closed the proceedings in the civil case, indicating that the dispute is subject to consideration within the framework of commercial proceedings, since the lessee (defendant) is in bankruptcy proceedings. The court took into account the changes in land legislation, which allow the lessee to alienate the lease right without the consent of the owner, which makes the lease right a property asset that can be included in the liquidation estate of the bankrupt. Also, the court noted that the termination of the lease agreement will affect the amount of the debtor’s liquidation estate, and therefore the dispute should be considered within the bankruptcy case. The court of cassation emphasized that from the moment of opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, the protection of rights and satisfaction of creditors’ claims is carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, and that this Code takes precedence over other norms of legislation.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged, confirming that the dispute on the termination of the lease agreement should be considered within the bankruptcy case in the commercial court.

[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834003](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126834003) **Case No. 910/10935/24 dated 04/23/2025** Good day! Here is my analysis of the court decision, as promised.

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.

2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, thus supporting the position of the courts of the first and appellate instances. The courts of previous instances probably thoroughly investigated the circumstances of the case, assessed the evidence and applied the relevant norms of substantive and procedural law, which became the basis for leaving their decisions unchanged. Perhaps the courts took into account violations of the procedure for adopting the appealed order or its inconsistency with the norms of current legislation. Also, the courts could take into account the validity of the claims and the existence of grounds for satisfying the claim. It is important that the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine joined the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, which indicates their common position in the case.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals and leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803551](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126803551) **Case No. 723/3691/13-ц dated 04/09/2025** Of course, here is the analysis of this court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the illegality of the village council’s decision to transfer ownership to an individual of land plots that overlap with railway transport lands, and the recognition as invalid of state acts for these plots.

2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned all previous decisions in the case, taking into account the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which established a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court noted that the national courts did not investigate the issue of proportionality
of interference with the applicant’s property right, and the ECtHR proposed restoring the property right, providing compensation, or equivalent property. The Grand Chamber decided that for proper execution of the ECtHR decision, it is necessary to establish and assess new circumstances, which is possible only in the court of first instance. The court emphasized that it respects the ECtHR’s decisions but resolves disputes based on the fact that the ECtHR only clarifies the issue of Ukraine’s compliance with the Convention and does not review the judicial decisions of national courts. The court also noted that the ECtHR cannot completely replace national authorities.

3. The court overturned all previous decisions and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case №420/25342/23 dated 24/04/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the State Institution “Probation Center” regarding the failure to pay the plaintiff an additional remuneration to the monetary allowance in the amount of UAH 30,000 monthly for the period from February 24, 2022, to July 1, 2022.

2. The court of cassation established that the disputed legal relations arose in the period until July 19, 2022, when the previous version of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU) was still in force, which did not limit the term for appealing to the court in cases of violation of labor remuneration legislation. The amendments to Article 233 of the LCU, introduced by the Law of Ukraine №2352-IX, which established a three-month period for appealing to the court, came into force only on July 19, 2022, and do not apply to legal relations that arose earlier. The court also took into account the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that in cases of continuing legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022, the previous version of Article 233 of the LCU applies to claims for the period up to that date. Since the plaintiff applied to the court with a claim for the payment of additional remuneration for the period up to July 1, 2022, her claims are not subject to the limitation regarding the term for appealing to the court.

3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.

Case №320/12942/23 dated 24/04/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of this court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of tax assessment notices by which the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv refused the Enterprise of Association of Citizens “Avvelum” a VAT budget refund.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the enterprise’s claims. The courts established that the enterprise had documented the payment of VAT on the import of goods, which entitles it to a tax credit and, accordingly, to a budget refund. The tax authority, in the opinion of the courts, unreasonably refused the refund, based on an analysis of transactions for the processing of purchased goods, which is not directly related to the formation of the tax credit. The court also noted that
that the customs declaration is a document confirming the payment of VAT upon import of goods, and the tax authorities did not dispute the existence of these declarations at the enterprise. The tax authority’s arguments regarding the failure to provide originals of bank statements were rejected, as the customs declaration is already sufficient proof of VAT payment.

4. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Kyiv, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 160/7238/22 dated April 24, 2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.

5. The subject of the dispute is an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the Dnipro City Council’s decision.

6. The Supreme Court refused to grant the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances, leaving the previous ruling in force. The court heard arguments from representatives of the plaintiff, defendant, and third parties, holding a hearing via video conference. In doing so, the court considered the applicant’s arguments regarding the existence of circumstances that could have affected the legality and validity of the previous decision, but found them insufficient for review. The court was guided by the principles of finality of court decisions and stability of legal relations, emphasizing the need to comply with procedural deadlines and properly substantiate the grounds for review. The court also took into account that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is an exceptional procedure that applies only in the presence of truly significant and previously unknown circumstances to the court that are of significant importance to the case.

7. The court ruled to refuse the application for review based on newly discovered circumstances and left the previous ruling of the Supreme Court in force.

Case No. 5023/10655/11 (641/6353/23) dated April 24, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

8. The subject of the dispute is the employee’s appeal against orders for reprimands and dismissal, as well as claims for reinstatement and payment of compensation.

9. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing to an incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts did not investigate whether the orders for reprimands were properly оформлені ( оформлені – can mean prepared, issued or formalized. This context indicates formally registered or issued, so formalized is preferred)., whether the reasons for the employee’s failure to perform tasks were justified, and whether all the employee’s objections regarding the circumstances of the violations were taken into account. The court also drew attention to conflicting data in the violation reports and the lack of assessment of certain evidence. In addition, the court noted that for the lawful dismissal of an employee, it is necessary to prove the existence of all elements of a disciplinary offense and compliance with the procedure for applying the penalty, which the courts of previous instances did not do. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of a comprehensive, complete, and objective consideration of the case with a proper examination of all evidence and circumstances.

10. VerThe Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the appellate and first instance commercial courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 120/5132/24 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! I will now explain everything to you in detail.

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the failure to index the plaintiff’s pension using the government-established coefficients for increasing the average salary taken into account when calculating the pension.

2. The court of cassation disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim. The court noted that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance,” pension indexation should be carried out by increasing the average salary indicator, which was directly taken into account when calculating the pension. The court emphasized that in the event of a conflict between the norms of the law and a by-law (in this case, the Procedure of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), the law prevails. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the pension authority unlawfully established a monthly allowance for the plaintiff instead of conducting full indexation taking into account the relevant coefficients. At the same time, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the right to pension indexation is not indefinite and is limited to a six-month period for applying to the court. Since the plaintiff applied to the court in April 2024, her claims for the period up to October 2023 were dismissed due to missing the deadline for applying to the court.

3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the inaction of the pension authority as unlawful and obliging it to recalculate and pay the pension, taking into account indexation, but only for a period not exceeding six months prior to the date of application to the court.

Case No. 120/12126/23 dated 04/24/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as promised:

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participating in combat operations.

2. The court of first instance granted the claim, taking into account the certificate from the military unit, which confirmed the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations. The appellate court overturned this decision, considering the certificate to be inadmissible evidence, as it did not contain sufficiently specific information about the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations and did not meet the established requirements. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that a certificate of participation in combat operations is sufficient evidence, and the commander who issued it is responsible for its accuracy. The Supreme Court also emphasized that shortcomings in the document flow between military units should not deprive a serviceman of the right to receive remuneration guaranteed by the state. The court alsothat the plaintiff should not be held liable for the unlawful inaction of entities vested with владними повноваженнями [authority].

3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the serviceman’s claim.

Case No. 620/7207/24 dated April 24, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the calculation and payment of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal from military service.

2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which regulates liability for delay in settlement upon dismissal. In particular, the appellate court incorrectly calculated the amount of compensation for the period until July 19, 2022, when the old version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine was still in effect, without taking into account the proportionality between the amounts paid and delayed. The court of cassation emphasized that for the period until July 19, 2022, the principle of proportionality defined by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court should be applied, taking into account the amount of debt, the period of delay, and other circumstances of the case. Regarding the period after July 19, 2022, when the new version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine came into force, which limits the payment to six months, calculations should be made without applying the principle of proportionality. The court also noted that the appellate court did not examine all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case, in particular, it did not establish the share of unpaid funds in comparison with the total amount of payments due upon dismissal.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

Case No. 380/16112/23 dated April 23, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the Pension Fund’s decision to refuse the recalculation of a civil servant’s pension and the obligation to carry out such recalculation, taking into account the provided certificates of salary.

2. The court of cassation disagreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, arguing that the plaintiff applied not for the recalculation of an already assigned pension, but for the initial calculation of a civil servant’s pension based on Article 37 of Law No. 3723-XII, the right to which was confirmed by a previous court decision. The court noted that the pension authority’s refusal of such calculation due to improper оформлення [execution/ оформлення] of one of the certificates (which was not issued on the date of application) without justifying the non-consideration of other submitted certificates and without notifying the plaintiff of the need to provide additional documents is unlawful. The court emphasized that the pension authority is not deprived of the opportunity to take active steps to obtain the necessary documents or to notify the applicant of their necessity. Given that the defendant lacks comp
competence to independently calculate wages, the court ruled that the proper way to protect the plaintiff’s rights is to oblige the pension authority to reconsider the application, taking into account all submitted certificates and the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, recognizing as unlawful the decision of the Pension Fund to refuse the recalculation of the pension and obliging it to reconsider the plaintiff’s application, taking into account the submitted certificates and the reasons set forth in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Case No. 920/1367/23 dated April 22, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application to impose subsidiary liability on the former and current founders and managers of “Trading House “Krolevets Armature Plant” LLC for the debtor’s obligations in the bankruptcy case.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing that a number of important circumstances must be established in order to impose subsidiary liability. In particular, the liquidator must conduct a full analysis of the financial condition of the bankrupt, take all measures to identify the debtor’s property and form a liquidation estate. The court emphasized that the conclusion about the insufficiency of the debtor’s property cannot be based only on the lack of documentation provided by the management, since the liquidator is obliged to use all available sources of information, including open state registers. Also, the court noted that the right to file an application for subsidiary liability arises only after the completion of the sale of the bankrupt’s property and settlements with creditors, when the lack of funds to satisfy the claims becomes finally clear. The court indicated that the previous instances did not fully investigate these circumstances, which makes their conclusions premature.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 320/4331/23 dated April 24, 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 tax notification-decision by which the plaintiff’s amount of negative VAT, which is included in the tax credit of the next reporting period, was reduced.

2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances prematurely concluded that the plaintiff lawfully formed a tax credit based on primary documents in February 2022, when special rules were in effect due to martial law. The court noted that the courts did not ascertain whether the plaintiff’s counterparty fulfilled the obligation to register tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URTI), and whether it had such an opportunity at all, taking into account martial law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the payer’s right to a tax credit correconcerns the obligation of the counterparty to register a tax invoice, and the peculiarities of fulfilling this obligation during martial law must be taken into account. The court also reminded about the principle of comprehensive clarification of the case’s circumstances, which requires the court to play an active role in establishing all the facts relevant to the resolution of the dispute. Considering that the courts of previous instances did not establish all the necessary circumstances, the Supreme Court decided that it could not make a final decision in the case.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 240/33584/23 dated 04/24/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of tax invoices and obliging the State Tax Service of Ukraine to register these tax invoices.

2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings because the tax authority missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance. The court noted that the lack of funding to pay the court fee is not a valid reason for reinstating the deadline, as the obligation to exercise procedural rights in good faith rests with all parties to the case, including entities vested with public authority. Also, the introduction of martial law in Ukraine is not an unconditional ground for reinstating the deadline, but must be assessed in each specific case, taking into account the applicant’s arguments. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence of objective and insurmountable circumstances that would have made it impossible to file an appeal in a timely manner.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.

Case No. 910/2322/21 dated 04/15/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision as you requested:

The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling on the commencement of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of “Phoenix Group Ukraine” LLC by a person who is the founder and participant of this company.

The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to open appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed after the expiration of the one-year period established by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the appellant was duly notified of the case’s consideration, as a copy of the ruling on the commencement of proceedings in the bankruptcy case was sent to the address indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations. The fact that the appellant did not receive a copy of the ruling due to the expiration of the storage period is not the fault of the court. In addition, the court rejected the appellant’s arguments that she could not familiarize herself with the case materials before being involved in the proceedings.
in the case as an authorized person of the participant of “Phoenix Group Ukraine” LLC, since the text of the ruling was published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. The court also did not take into account the appellant’s reference to quarantine and martial law, as she did not prove that these circumstances were a direct obstacle to filing an appeal within the established period.

The court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal.

[**Case No. 761/8893/22 dated 04/24/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126843611)
Good day! Of course, I will help you analyze this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to accept an additional decision on the application of PERSON_1 regarding the cancellation of the first instance court’s ruling on the opening of proceedings on the application of PERSON_2 for review of the court order for the recovery of alimony based on newly discovered circumstances.

2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, reasoning that the appellate court correctly refused to accept an additional decision, since the objections of PERSON_1 to the first instance court’s ruling had already been examined and considered by the appellate court when making the previous resolution. The court of cassation emphasized that an additional decision can only be made in cases clearly defined by procedural law, and cannot change the essence of the main decision or resolve new issues that were not investigated in the court session. Also, the court of cassation noted that PERSON_1 is not deprived of the right to appeal the previous resolution of the appellate court in cassation proceedings. The court of cassation indicated that the task of civil proceedings is to consider and resolve the dispute based on the materials collected in the preparatory proceedings.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

[**Case No. 484/2665/22 dated 04/24/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126843898)
Good day! I will be happy to help you understand this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants).

2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments used by the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court’s ruling from the provided operative part of the resolution. However, it can be assumed that the cassation court found certain violations of substantive or procedural law committed by the appellate court when reviewing the verdict of the court of first instance. It is possible that the provisions of the criminal law were incorrectly applied, or there were significant shortcomings in the procedure for considering the appeal. A complete text of the resolution is required for a more accurate analysis.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted
upheld the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and also released PERSON_6 from the penitentiary institution.

Case №638/4896/22 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 appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for a serviceman convicted of unauthorized abandonment of service under martial law.

2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s verdict, agreeing that the release from serving the sentence on probation was unfounded, considering the severity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, and the identity of the convicted person. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably took into account that the convicted person, being a contract serviceman, violated the military oath and evaded the performance of service duties in wartime, which undermines the combat capability of military formations and the authority of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the voluntary appearance of the convicted person at the military unit after a long absence is not a sufficient basis for release from real punishment. The arguments of the defense regarding the convicted person’s stay in the occupied territory and other mitigating circumstances were found to be unsustainable, since the convicted person agreed with the actual circumstances of the case in the court of first instance. The court of cassation emphasized that the punishment imposed by the appellate court in the form of imprisonment for a term of 5 years is fair, commensurate with the committed crime, and necessary for the correction of the convicted person.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defenders, and left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged.

Case №367/2269/23 dated 04/24/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:

The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings against a person convicted of violating the rules of handling weapons, which caused the consequences provided for in Part 2 of Article 414 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the representative of the victims, found that the appellate court did not fully take into account the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties. In particular, important aspects concerning the degree of severity of the consequences caused by the actions of the convicted person, as well as the impact of these consequences on the victims, remained unaddressed. In addition, the appellate court did not properly assess the evidence presented by the prosecution and did not verify the validity of the conclusions of the court of first instance. Also, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding ensuring a fair trial and a comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court’s ruling is
unreasonable and subject to cancellation.

Court decision: The cassation appeal of the representative of the victims is partially satisfied, the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal is canceled, and a new hearing is ordered in the court of appeal.

Case No. 910/15243/23 dated 04/24/2025
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 LLC “FC “Velvichia” against LLC “Rosichi” within the bankruptcy case of the latter.

2. The court refused to satisfy the claims of LLC “FC “Velvichia” because the company did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the occurrence of circumstances that caused the damage, namely the flooding of the premises where the property was stored. The court noted that for the recovery of damages, the presence of all elements of a civil offense is necessary, including unlawful conduct, damages, causation, and fault, and LLC “FC “Velvichia” did not prove the existence of these elements. The court also emphasized that the debtor’s acknowledgment of debt without proper evidence regarding the amount of damage caused is not a sufficient basis for recognizing the creditor’s monetary claims. In addition, the court pointed to the increased standard of proof in bankruptcy cases, which requires creditors to provide convincing evidence to support their claims. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Velvichia” and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

Case No. 904/4771/23 dated 04/15/2025
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 the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region to the Limited Liability Company “Prom Garant Plus” in the bankruptcy case.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially refused to recognize the monetary claims of the MD STS. The courts of previous instances established that a portion of the penalty was accrued by the tax authority in violation of the 1095-day period established by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation noted that the tax authority did not properly substantiate the need to form a conclusion regarding the application of the norms of the Tax Code in the context of the disputed legal relations, and also did not prove the violation or incorrect application of these norms by the courts. The court also indicated that when appealing court decisions on the grounds of the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the issue of applying a rule of law, the cassation appeal must contain an indication of the rule of law regarding which there is no conclusion about its application, with specification of the content of the legal relations in which this conclusion is absent, and justification of the need to form a unified law enforcement practice.
regarding this norm for the correct resolution of the case. Since the appellant did not prove the incorrect application of substantive law and/or violation of procedural law by the courts of previous instances in the part of the decision to refuse recognition of creditor claims against the debtor, the panel of judges sees no legal grounds for granting the cassation appeal.

3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region without satisfaction, and to leave the decision of the court of appeal and the ruling of the court of first instance unchanged in the part of the refusal to recognize monetary claims.

Case No. 910/20172/23 dated 04/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the review of the case in the court of cassation instance.

2. In this case, the Supreme Court considered an application for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance. The court noted that everyone has the right to professional legal assistance, and reimbursement of court costs is one of the fundamental principles of commercial court proceedings. The court emphasized that expenses for legal assistance are subject to distribution between the parties if the scope of services provided, work performed, and their cost are confirmed. In this case, agreements on the provision of legal assistance were concluded between the plaintiff and the lawyer, where a fixed amount of the fee for representation in the court of cassation instance was determined. The court took into account that the defendant did not object to the amount of these expenses and concluded that the claimed expenses meet the criteria of reasonableness, reality, and proportionality to the complexity of the case.

3. The Supreme Court decided to grant the application and recover from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 30,000 for expenses for professional legal assistance.

Case No. 902/1014/23(902/1203/24) dated 04/15/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the property of “AERO-ZET Ready Breakfast Plant” LLC upon the application of PERSON_1 within the bankruptcy case.

2. The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, namely Article 174 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, when it extended the deadline for eliminating the deficiencies of the appeal complaint of “AERO-ZET Ready Breakfast Plant” LLC on its own initiative, after the expiration of the 10-day period established for this. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court had to return the appeal complaint of “AERO-ZET Ready Breakfast Plant” LLC, since the deficiencies were not eliminated in time. Also, the court of cassation instance referred to the conclusions of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which refute the possibility of extending the deadline for eliminating the deficiencies of the appeal complaint beyond the provided 10-day period. Opening of the appeal
that the opening of appellate proceedings under such circumstances was unlawful. As a result, the consideration of the appeal of LLC “Factory of Ready Breakfasts “AERO-ZET” by the appellate court cannot be considered lawful.

3. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling and orders of the North-Western Economic Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.

Case №990/282/24 dated 24/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the President of Ukraine regarding the failure to consider the submission of the High Council of Justice on the appointment of the plaintiff to the position of judge.

2. The court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiff had passed all the necessary stages for appointment to the position of judge, and the President of Ukraine, having received the submission of the HCJ, had to respond to it within 30 days, as provided for by Article 80 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” The court emphasized that this term is sufficient, mandatory, and reasonable for considering the submission. The court also noted that the decision on the appointment of judges falls within the exclusive discretion of the HCJ, and the President of Ukraine, implementing the latter’s initiative, issues a decree on the appointment of a judge, and any appeals regarding the candidate do not impede the appointment. The court took into account that more than three years had passed from the moment the HCJ submission was received by the Office of the President until the appeal to the court, which is beyond a reasonable period. The court also took into account that the representative of the President did not provide any reasonable objections to the inaction, but only referred to the missed deadline for appealing to the court, which was rejected by the court.

3. The court granted the claims, recognized the inaction of the President of Ukraine as unlawful, and ordered him to consider the HCJ submission on the appointment of the plaintiff to the position of judge.

Case №280/3642/23 dated 24/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “Zaporizhzhia Plant of Heavy Crane Construction” of administrative and economic sanctions and penalties for failure to meet the job quota for the employment of persons with disabilities in 2022.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since they, when assessing the average number of employees and the employment quota for persons with disabilities for 2022, unreasonably rejected data from official state registers, which have an automated nature of formation, and took into account only documents submitted by the defendant. The court emphasized that from November 6, 2022, the Social Protection Fund for Persons with Disabilities received the authority to apply administrative and economic sanctions for failure to meet the employment quota for persons with disabilities based on an automated analysis of data from the State Register of Compulsory State Social Insurance.
and the Centralized Bank of Disability Data, without the need for unscheduled inspections by the State Labor Service. Also, the court noted that employees undergoing military service upon conscription during mobilization are included in the calculation of the average number of full-time employees for the purpose of determining the job quota for the employment of persons with disabilities. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not assess the actions of PrJSC “Zaporizhzhia Heavy Crane-Building Plant” regarding ensuring the reliability and timeliness of reporting, whether the employer took measures to correct errors in the reporting before the imposition of administrative and economic sanctions by the Fund for Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities, and also did not assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the plaintiff’s compliance with the procedure established by law for determining and notifying about the accrual of administrative and economic sanctions and penalties.

3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances and remanding the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 300/1388/24 dated 04/24/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice regarding the imposition of a fine on Vesta-Electro LLC for late payment of the tax liability on income tax.

2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not ascertain the date of receipt by Vesta-Electro LLC of the audit report, which is important for determining the legality of the adoption of the tax assessment notice. The court noted that the tax assessment notice was adopted before the expiration of the deadline for submitting objections to the audit report and without taking them into account, which is a violation of paragraph 86.7 of Article 86 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. Also, the court indicated that the right to consider objections does not depend on the provision of additional documents, and rejected the conclusion of the appellate court regarding the formality of the violation. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the premature adoption of the tax assessment notice, which indicates a superficial approach to resolving the dispute.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 460/2217/23 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to take into account the additional remuneration when calculating financial assistance for health improvement, compensation for unused vacation, and one-time financial assistance upon dismissal.

2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted
established that the courts of previous instances did not examine the issue of calculating and paying the plaintiff the additional remuneration provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168, and the amounts of its payment, in particular, before dismissal. The court indicated that when calculating compensation for unused vacation days, unlike wellness assistance and dismissal assistance, remuneration should be taken into account, as the relevant instruction does not contain reservations regarding its exclusion. The court also emphasized the obligation of the court to establish the actual circumstances of the case, regardless of the position of the parties, and to request the necessary evidence. Since the courts of previous instances did not establish important facts, such as the payment of remuneration and its amount, the cassation court could not make a decision on the merits.

3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

**Case No. 904/1256/24 dated April 22, 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 “BANK VOSTOK” of damages in the amount of UAH 9,722,495 caused to KNPF NBU due to the bank’s improper performance of its obligations in opening and servicing the account of LLC “Triumph”.

2. The court dismissed the claim because KNPF NBU did not prove the existence of all elements of a civil offense in the bank’s actions. In particular, the court found that at the time of opening the account of LLC “Triumph”, the bank was not obliged to check for encumbrances on the client’s movable property in the State Register, as the current legislation did not require this. In addition, the bank complied with the requirements of the state executor to seize funds in the debtor’s account after receiving the relevant order. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of violations by the bank in opening and servicing the account, and the NBU’s response indicated that there were no grounds for applying measures of influence to the bank. The appellate court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the obligation to suspend debit transactions arises only when funds in the account are encumbered, and not other property. Regarding the costs of professional legal assistance, the appellate court reduced their amount, recognizing part of the time spent by the lawyer as disproportionate to the complexity of the case.

3. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of KNPF NBU.

**Case No. 910/3176/24 dated April 23, 2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the banks’ actions as illegal and the obligation to return funds debited from the client’s account as a result of fraudulent actions.

2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and satisfied the claim, motivating it by the fact that JSC CB “Privatbank” did not provide adequate protection of information and enhanced identification
Regarding the user authentication in the “Privat24 for Business” system, which allowed an unknown person to change the details of the payment instruction. Also, JSC “Accenture-Bank” did not stop the payment operation, having discovered a discrepancy between the name and the code of the recipient, as required by the NBU Instruction. The court noted that the bank is responsible for the security of electronic payments, and the unauthorized debiting of funds indicates interference in the banking system. The court emphasized that the bank did not prove that the client’s actions contributed to the fraud, therefore all doubts should be interpreted in favor of the client. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the bank did not provide adequate protection of information and did not prove the client’s guilt in the loss of funds.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the banks’ cassation appeals, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.

Case No. 870/1/25 dated 04/22/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the application of the Peasant (Farmer) Enterprise “Monolit” to cancel the decision of the arbitration court, which recovered funds from the enterprise in favor of LLC “Poletekhnika”.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the application of PFE “Monolit” to cancel the decision of the arbitration court, motivating it as follows:
* The parties concluded an agreement containing an arbitration clause, that is, they agreed to resolve disputes by an arbitration court.
* The court examined the original of the agreement and found that it was signed by authorized persons and sealed with the seals of both parties.
* The arguments of PFE “Monolit” that the court of first instance did not demand the original of the agreement do not affect the correctness of the court’s conclusions, since the original of the agreement was provided to the court of appeal and examined by the court.
* The court did not establish any circumstances that would indicate the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or the lack of competence of the arbitration court to hear this case.
* The arguments of PFE “Monolit” about the violation of its right to participate in the hearing of the case, since the representative did not receive the decision on the videoconference in time, are unfounded, since the participant in the case must be interested in the status of the proceedings in his case and take measures to ensure his participation in the court session.

3. The court decided to dismiss the appeal of the Peasant (Farmer) Enterprise “Monolit”, and the decision of the court of appeal remained unchanged.

Case No. 991/2030/22 dated 04/15/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the accused against the decision of the court of appeal regarding the partial closure of criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Art. 255 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, because the court of appeal held a court hearing in the absence of a defense attorney.
one of the accused, whose participation was mandatory in the criminal proceedings regarding a particularly serious crime, which is a violation of the right to defense guaranteed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Also, the appellate court did not thoroughly examine the arguments of the accused regarding the unauthorized composition of the court of first instance. The court emphasized that ensuring the right to defense is necessary at all stages of criminal proceedings. The absence of a defense attorney, whose participation is mandatory, is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law, which entails the cancellation of the court decision.

The court ordered to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and to assign a new trial in the appellate instance.

Case №202/640/24 dated 04/21/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment for a person convicted of intentional homicide committed by a person who had previously committed intentional homicide.

2. The Supreme Court agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments that the appellate court did not duly take into account the degree of severity of the crime and the identity of the convicted person, who had previously been convicted of similar crimes, which indicates his high public danger and unwillingness to reform. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the nature and circumstances of the act committed, in particular, the number and location of the bodily injuries inflicted, as well as the conduct of the convicted person after the commission of the crime, who tried to conceal the murder. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not take into account aggravating circumstances, such as recidivism of crimes and committing the crime while intoxicated, as well as the absence of mitigating circumstances. Taking into account the systematic commission of crimes against life and health, the Supreme Court concluded that the punishment imposed by the appellate court in the form of 15 years of imprisonment is manifestly unfair due to its leniency and does not meet the purpose of the punishment.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and assigned a new trial in the appellate instance, emphasizing the need to take into account all the circumstances of the case and information about the identity of the convicted person when determining the measure of punishment, and also chose a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention.

Case №922/3921/21 (922/1371/22) dated 04/24/2025
Good day! Let’s take a closer look at this ruling of the Supreme Court.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the rulings of the courts of previous instances regarding the inclusion of monetary claims of Metinkom LLC in the register of creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case of Kharkiv-Moscow LLC.

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which concerned the inclusion of the claims of Metinkom LLC in the register of creditors. The court did not specify the specific reasons for making such a decision in the provided part of the ruling. However, usually
and similar decisions are made when the courts of previous instances have violated the norms of substantive or procedural law during the consideration of the creditor’s application, have not fully clarified the circumstances of the case, or have incorrectly assessed the evidence. In such a case, the Supreme Court, as a rule, indicates the need for a retrial of the case, taking into account the instructions set out in the resolution.

3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of previous instances regarding the inclusion of the claims of Metincom LLC in the register of creditors and to send the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv region.

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 refusal to open bankruptcy proceedings for the State Enterprise “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna” at the initiative of the Farm Enterprise “Kyrychok”.

2. The court of cassation instance granted the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance to refuse to open bankruptcy proceedings. The court proceeded from the fact that the debtor’s objections to the creditor’s claims, which are not confirmed by a court decision, indicate the existence of a dispute about the right. In particular, the debtor disputed the fact that the contracts on which the creditor’s claims are based were signed by authorized persons. The court took into account that the debtor, in its response to the application for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, denies the existence of debt, pointing out that the transactions specified in the application for the opening of proceedings, to which the creditor refers, were not signed by authorized persons of the debtor. The court also took into account the previous practice of the Supreme Court, according to which the existence of a dispute about the right is a basis for refusing to open bankruptcy proceedings.

3. The court decided to grant the cassation appeal of the State Enterprise “Experimental Farm “Ozyerna”, to overturn the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of the Kyiv region.

Case No. 160/31497/23 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 legality of the decision of the executive committee of the Dnipro City Council regarding the approval of the list of land plots allocated for parking.

2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court that the decision of the executive committee on the approval of the list of land plots for parking is an individual act, and not a regulatory legal act, since it concerns specific objects of communal property. Accordingly, the terms of appeal established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine apply to it. The court noted that the plaintiff missed the six-month term for applying to the court, since it is clear from the case file that the plaintiff knew about the existence of the appealed
of the appealed decision since 2020. The plaintiff’s arguments that he was challenging all amendments and additions to the decision were not accepted by the court, as each decision to amend is a separate act that should have been challenged separately. The court also rejected the reference to the Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure,” as it does not apply to legal relations that arose before its entry into force.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.

Case No. 420/6259/23 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! Let’s consider the case regarding a serviceman’s appeal against the actions of a military unit regarding the deprivation of his additional remuneration.

The court considered the dispute regarding the legality of depriving a serviceman of additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 30,000 for the period of his stay in treatment, as well as regarding the obligation to pay such remuneration for the entire period of treatment. The court found that the serviceman was indeed wounded during combat operations but returned from the medical facility to the military unit late, which was recorded by an official investigation. The court took into account that, according to a separate instruction from the Minister of Defense of Ukraine, servicemen who have unauthorizedly left a military unit or place of service are not included in the orders for the payment of additional remuneration for the month of the violation and the entire period of unauthorized absence. The court also took into account that the military unit provided evidence of the payment of additional remuneration for other periods, except for the period of unauthorized absence from service. The court emphasized that the deprivation of additional remuneration is not a disciplinary sanction but a consequence of non-compliance with the conditions of its payment, established by a separate instruction of the Minister of Defense.

The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, confirming the legality of the military unit’s actions.

Case No. 380/7722/24 dated 04/24/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decisions of the Lviv Customs regarding the adjustment of the customs value of goods imported by an individual entrepreneur.

2. The court of cassation found that the court of appeal mistakenly dismissed the claim without consideration, motivating it by missing the deadline for appealing to the court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not give the plaintiff the opportunity to file a motion to renew the missed deadline or to provide other valid reasons for its renewal, which is a violation of procedural rules. The court of cassation emphasized that the established deadlines for appealing to the administrative court serve to ensure predictability and legal certainty, but the courts must take into account the material content of the legal relations and ensure the possibility of exercising the right to judicial protection. The court also noted that the decision to adjust the customs value is notidentical tax assessment notice-decision, therefore special terms stipulated by the Tax Code of Ukraine do not apply to them. The court indicated that the appellate court should have verified the existence of grounds for renewing the term for appealing to the court, which was not done.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.

Case No. 990/160/23 dated April 21, 2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Eurotrubplast Holding Ltd” against the Decree of the President of Ukraine regarding the enactment of the National Security and Defense Council’s decision on applying sanctions to the company.

2. The court, in dismissing the claim, noted that the President acted within his constitutional powers by enacting the NSDC’s decision on sanctions aimed at protecting the national interests and security of Ukraine. The court emphasized that it is sufficient for competent authorities to establish not only a real but also a potential threat to national interests. The court took into account that the NSDC has discretion in determining the sufficiency of grounds for applying sanctions, and judicial control here is limited to verifying compliance with the boundaries of this discretion and the procedure for imposing sanctions. The court also took into consideration the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court, which established a connection between the company’s previous owners and a Russian manufacturer of materials for the military industry, indicating a potential threat to the national security of Ukraine. The court recognized that although the sanctions are an interference with the right of ownership, they are proportionate, considering the interests of national security.

3. The court decided to dismiss the claim of “Eurotrubplast Holding Ltd” to declare unlawful and cancel the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part concerning the application of sanctions.

Case No. 520/13695/2020 dated April 24, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal by an individual against a tax assessment notice-decision increasing the amount of tax liability for land lease payment.

2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments that he was no longer the owner of the apartment located on the leased land plot in 2020, as he sold it at the end of 2019, which could affect his obligation to pay land lease. The court emphasized that it is not permissible to restrict the taxpayer’s right to prove the circumstances on which his claims are based. Also, the court of cassation took into account that there is an ongoing court dispute regarding the termination of the lease agreement, the circumstances of which may be important for resolving the issue of tax liabilities accrual. Given these circumstances, the court of cassation concluded that the courts of firstof appeal violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new hearing.

**Case No. 640/39548/21 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 inaction of the Kyiv City Council regarding the failure to consider the application of the Condominium Association for permission to develop technical documentation on land management for the division of a land plot.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, indicating the incorrect application of the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court noted that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied Article 118 of the Land Code of Ukraine, which regulates the procedure for granting permission to develop a land management project regarding the allocation of a land plot, instead of Article 79-1 of the Land Code of Ukraine and Procedure No. 241/2463, which regulate the procedure for granting permission to develop technical documentation on land management regarding the division of a land plot of communal ownership. Also, the courts did not consider the issue of involving the Department of Land Resources as a co-defendant, which could affect the completeness of the investigation of the circumstances of the case. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the requirement to oblige the Kyiv City Council to consider the plaintiff’s application at a plenary session is beyond the powers of the defendant, since, according to Procedure No. 241/2463, this is done on the basis of a sole resolution (instruction) of the Kyiv City Mayor or his deputy.

3. The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the Kyiv City Council, cancel the decisions of the previous instances and send the case back to the court of first instance for a new hearing.

**Case No. 160/16370/22 dated 04/24/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the conclusion of the Eastern Office of the State Audit Service regarding violations in the public procurement procedure, namely the non-compliance of the terms of the procurement contract with the requirements of the tender documentation.

2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the terms of the procurement contract must comply with the tender offer, and the essential terms cannot be changed after signing, except for clearly defined cases in the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”. The court noted that for the customer, who publishes a draft contract in the tender documentation, all the terms of this draft are essential, since they are declared by him as a party in a public offer. The absence of certain clauses specified in the draft contract, which was part of the tender documentation, in the concluded contract, is regarded as a violation of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”. Su
and also emphasized that the bodies of the State Audit Service have the right to oblige to eliminate the identified violations, and the method of eliminating violations is determined by the customer. The court indicated that the conclusion of the State Audit Service is clear and definite, since it specifies exactly what measures the customer should take to eliminate the violations.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rejected the claim of the “Energoatom” company to declare the conclusion of the State Audit Service illegal.

Case No. 320/9086/22 dated 04/24/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notification-decision by which “East Gate Logistic” LLC reduced the amount of the negative value of the object of income tax taxation.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which признали незаконным проведение документальной плановой проверки ООО «Ист Гейт Логистик» во время действия моратория, установленного пунктом 52-2 подраздела 10 раздела XX «Переходные положения» Налогового кодекса Украины. The court emphasized that the Tax Code has higher legal force than the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 89, which allowed the conduct of some types of inspections. The Supreme Court emphasized that changes to the Tax Code can only be made by law, and not by a resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers. Also, the court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine” is a temporary normative legal act and cannot change the provisions of other laws, such as the Tax Code. The court pointed out that the illegality of the inspection is a sufficient basis for признания незаконным налогового уведомления-решения, принятого по ее результатам.

3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv region without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.

Case No. 905/291/23 dated 04/15/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the признание денежных требований JSC “Tascombank” to LLC “Kostyantynivka Plant of Metallurgical Equipment” (LLC “KZMO”) in the case of bankruptcy of the latter.

2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that there were credit obligations between the bank and LLC “KZMO”, confirmed by relevant agreements and bank statements. The courts took into account the partial repayment of the debt by foreclosing on mortgage and pledge items in an out-of-court procedure, and also rejected part of the bank’s claims that were not properly confirmed. The court noted that LLC “KZMO” did not refute the legitimacy of transactions to terminate monetary obligations under loan agreements by foreclosing on the subject of the pledge, and also did not provide proper evidence regarding the inflated value of the property on which the foreclosure was carried out. C
The court of cassation also emphasized that the existence of a legal dispute between the parties is not an obstacle to the consideration of creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case, and the expert opinions provided by “KZMO” LLC are not binding on the court and must be evaluated in conjunction with other evidence.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “KZMO” LLC and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.

[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126866848](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126866848) **Case No. 907/769/19 dated 04/24/2025**

1. The subject of the dispute is the interpretation of a clause in the purchase and sale agreement, initiated by the Department of Urban Infrastructure of the Uzhhorod City Council.

2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which dismissed the Department’s appeal without consideration because the Department failed to comply with the appellate court’s requirements to provide translated documents for notifying foreign defendants and a receipt for payment of expenses related to this notification. The court noted that the failure to provide these documents within the established deadline made it impossible to consider the case, as proper notification of the non-resident defendants about the court proceedings was not ensured. The court also emphasized that the Department did not request an extension of the deadline for fulfilling the court’s requirements before the expiration of this deadline, which is a necessary condition for such an extension. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the impossibility of making the payment, as the appellate court dismissed the appeal without consideration due to non-compliance with the requirements of the ruling within the established deadline, and not due to the mere fact of non-payment.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Department of Urban Infrastructure of the Uzhhorod City Council and to uphold the ruling of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal.

[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126866992](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126866992) **Case No. 916/3630/23(916/323/24) dated 04/16/2025**

Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 29,883,051.60 of unjustifiably debited funds from the debtor’s account (“Kherson Regional Energy Supply Company” LLC) in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” during the period of the moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case.

2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to dismiss the claim, but for different reasons. The court of cassation emphasized that from the moment of opening the bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is in a special legal regime. Although bankruptcy proceedings were opened and a receiver was appointed, the courts did not establish the fact of termination of the debtor’s manager’s powers and their assignment to the receiver. The Supreme Court emphasized that the receiver does not have the right to interfere in the debtor’s operational and economic activities, and the initiation of a dispute regarding debt recovery should be carried out by the company’s manager, if his powers have not been terminated. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the r
the property manager did not have the authority to file this claim, as it was not proven that the head of Kherson Regional Energy Supply Company LLC had been removed from office.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, denying the cassation appeal.

Case No. 922/2714/23 (752/11425/22) of April 23, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a loan agreement concluded between individuals.

2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court to suspend proceedings in the case regarding the invalidation of the loan agreement. The appellate court suspended the proceedings because a criminal case is being considered, in which the circumstances of possible pressure and threats that may have influenced the conclusion of the loan agreement are being investigated. The court of cassation agreed that the civil case cannot be considered until the circumstances in the criminal proceedings are established, as these circumstances are relevant to resolving the dispute regarding the validity of the agreement. The court noted that a guilty verdict in the criminal proceedings will be binding on the commercial court on the issue of whether the actions took place and whether they were committed by a specific person. The court also took into account that the case in the criminal proceedings is at the stage of judicial review, not pre-trial investigation.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.

Case No. 902/1014/23 of April 23, 2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the issue of the distribution of court costs in the bankruptcy case of an individual after the individual’s cassation appeal was dismissed.

2. The Supreme Court considered the issue of recovering from the individual the court fee for filing a cassation appeal, the payment of which had been deferred until the end of the cassation proceedings. The court noted that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee,” if the cassation appeal is dismissed, the deferred payment of the court fee is subject to recovery into the state budget revenue. The court considered the subsistence level for able-bodied persons established on January 1, 2024, as well as the court fee rates provided for filing a cassation appeal against a court ruling and creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case. Based on this, the court determined the total amount of the court fee to be recovered from the individual.

3. The court ordered the recovery of UAH 39,364.00 of court fee from the individual into the revenue of the State Budget of Ukraine for the consideration of the cassation appeal.

Case No. 120/8603/23 of April 24, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-withholding and non-payment to a serviceman of additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 100,000 for participation in combat operations.

2. The court of first instance granted the claim, recognizing the inaction of the military unit as illegal, since the fact of the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations was confirmed by a certificate from the military unit to which he was seconded, and this fact was not refuted by the defendant. The appellate court overturned this decision, reasoning that the provided certificate is not proper evidence, as it does not contain specific dates of participation in combat operations and does not meet the requirements of the order of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision, emphasized that a certificate of participation in combat operations issued by the commander of the military unit to which the serviceman was seconded is proper evidence, and the commander who issued it is responsible for its reliability. The Supreme Court also noted that deficiencies in the document flow between military units cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to receive due remuneration, and sending lists in the established form is only an element of the payment procedure, and not a determining factor for confirming the right to payment.

3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the serviceman’s claims.

Case No. 643/16333/24 dated April 24, 2025
Good day! Let’s take a detailed look at the Supreme Court’s decision.

1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a decision on an administrative offense, namely, holding a person liable for driving a vehicle without proper documents.

2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, which returned the appeal filed by the attorney due to the absence of a warrant, considering that the agreement on the provision of legal assistance is sufficient confirmation of the attorney’s powers. The court emphasized that ensuring the right to appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of administrative proceedings. The court also took into account that legal practice is carried out on the basis of an agreement on the provision of legal assistance, and the absence of a direct reference to the agreement in the CASU does not exclude its use for confirming powers. The court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of the invalidity of the certificate of the right to practice law, doubts about the status of the representative are unfounded. The court referred to the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, emphasizing the importance of the agreement on the provision of legal assistance as a basis for representation.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 160/12386/21 dated April 23, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested: