Case №380/16902/24 of 29/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the State Tax Service of Ukraine (STS) to issue a license for the production of tobacco products to the Limited Liability Company “Vynnykivska Tobacco Factory.”
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which признали the refusal of the STS to be unlawful. The court noted that in order to obtain a license for the production of tobacco products, the company must submit a production certificate confirming the compliance of the production with the established requirements, including sanitary and fire regulations. The availability of permits from the sanitary and epidemiological service and state fire supervision authorities must be confirmed by the production certificate. The form of the certificate does not require separate indication of information about these permits, but their availability is checked during certification. Since the company submitted all the necessary documents, including the production certificate, the STS had no legal grounds to refuse the issuance of the license. The court also emphasized that the STS has no right to demand additional documents not provided for by law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the STS and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, confirming the obligation of the STS to issue a license.
Case №160/1407/23 of 29/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the conclusion of the State Audit Service regarding violations of the legislation on public procurement by the Department of Humanitarian Policy of the Dnipro City Council.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the Department, having announced 186 procurements of catering services under the same code DK 021:2015:55320000-9, violated the requirements of the Law “On Public Procurement,” which prohibits dividing the subject of procurement into parts in order to avoid conducting an open tender procedure. The court emphasized that the customer had the right to determine separate lots within a single procurement procedure, taking into account the different volumes of services and places of their provision, but did not do so. Also, since the total expected cost of all procurements exceeded 133,000 euros, the Department should have additionally published an announcement of the tender in English. The court took into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which emphasized that educational institutions are not parties to procurement contracts, and the difference in volumes and places of service provision передбачає the determination of separate lots. The court also noted that the requirement of the State Audit Service to take measures to prevent violations in the future is preventative and does not require the termination of contracts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and refused to satisfy the claim of the Department of Humanitarian Policy of Dniproof the City Council.
Case No. 420/4345/24 dated April 29, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of compensation for the delay in the payment of indexation of the monetary allowance to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the return of the statement of claim in the part of the claims regarding indexation for the period from 2015 to 2018, since the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court. The court noted that the dispute concerns the salary of a serviceman, and therefore, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU) should be applied. Since at the time of payment of indexation (December 13, 2022), the new version of Article 233 of the LCU was already in effect, which established a three-month period for applying to the court in cases on the payment of due amounts, the plaintiff missed this deadline. The court also emphasized that the deadline for applying to the court begins from the moment when the person learned about the violation of their right, that is, from the date of payment of indexation without compensation for the delay. The court referred to its own practice, in particular to the ruling of April 2, 2024 in case No. 560/8194/20, where a similar approach was already applied to the calculation of terms in disputes regarding compensation for delay in payments.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 320/34847/23 dated April 28, 2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, by which the amount of monetary obligation for excise tax was increased and penalties were applied to the “Uzynskyi Sugar Plant” Limited Liability Company.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the tax audit was conducted in violation of the established moratorium, the effect of which was provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine at the time of the audit. The court noted that the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which the tax authority referred to, cannot cancel the provisions of the Tax Code, which has higher legal force. The court also emphasized that the violation of the audit procedure is an independent basis for canceling tax assessment notices issued based on the results of such an audit. The court referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court, according to which evidence obtained in violation of the established procedure is inadmissible. In addition, the court indicated that the tax authority did not prove the legality of issuing the disputed tax assessment notices.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged, supporting the cancellation of the tax assessment notices.
Case No. 580/483/23 dated April 29, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed
Analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the Executive Committee of the Cherkasy City Council on the early termination of the contract with the private joint-stock company “Cherkasy ATP 17127” for the transportation of passengers by road.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the ATP systematically violated the terms of the contract, namely, it did not ensure compliance with the traffic schedule and the required number of buses on the route, which was recorded by inspection reports. The court took into account information about previous similar violations, as well as the ATP’s refusal to install validators for cashless fare payment. The trip tickets provided by the ATP did not confirm compliance with traffic schedules, as they did not contain the necessary data for verification. The court noted that the verification of the number of buses and compliance with traffic schedules should be carried out using GPS monitoring, as provided for by the terms of the contract. Also, the court indicated that the notice of termination of the contract was sent to the ATP, as provided for by the terms of the contract. The court emphasized that the contract for the organization of transportation is administrative, which gives the defendant the right to control the fulfillment of the terms of the contract.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 141/823/23 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 recognition of ownership of real estate in the order of inheritance by will.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that since at the time of the death of the testator the disputed house belonged to the collective farm household, the members of which were the testator, his wife and son, then the heir (son) owns only part of the house in proportion to his share in the collective farm household and taking into account the mandatory share of the inheritance for the wife. The court took into account that the son did not lose the right to a share in the collective farm household, since he was in military service as of April 15, 1991. Also, the court of cassation noted that it cannot worsen the position of the plaintiff, who is challenging the decision of the court of appeal, therefore it leaves the decision of the court of appeal unchanged. The court of cassation emphasized that the resolution of disputes regarding the property of the former collective farm household, acquired before April 15, 1991, must take place in accordance with the norms that regulated the ownership of the collective farm household at that time.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
**Case No. 520/36681/23 dated 04/29/2025**
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of the Kharkiv City Council on assigning an address to the supermarket.
The court of cassation established
I have learned that the appellate court rendered a decision regarding the rights and interests of a person (PERSON_1) who was not involved in the case, which is a gross violation of procedural law. PERSON_1 provided evidence that he/she is the owner/trustee of non-residential premises in the building that was assigned the disputed address, and therefore the outcome of the case directly affects his/her rights and obligations. The appellate court failed to consider that the decision in the case may affect the rights and obligations of persons who are not parties to the case and did not involve PERSON_1 in the case as a third party. Also, the court of first instance did not establish the proper parties to the case. As a result, PERSON_1 was deprived of the opportunity to prove the validity of his/her position before the court.
The decisions of the courts of previous instances are overturned, and the case is remanded for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 618/366/20 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 protection of the plaintiff’s intellectual property right to a utility model (patent No. NUMBER_1) and the recovery of damages from the defendant, who, according to the plaintiff, illegally used his intellectual property.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the defendant proved the existence of a prior user right in accordance with Article 470 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Article 31 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”. The court found that before the date the plaintiff filed the application for the utility model, the defendant was already manufacturing and selling wagon liners using technical conditions that contained features identical to the plaintiff’s utility model. The court also took into account that the defendant had made significant and serious preparations for such use, which entitles him to continue using the utility model free of charge. The court noted that the issue of the existence of a prior user right is a matter of law and legal assessment, and does not require special knowledge in the field of science, technology and intellectual property. The court also took into account the expert opinion, which confirmed that the wagon liner manufactured by the defendant complies with the technical conditions approved before the date of filing the application by the plaintiff.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 420/36843/23 dated 04/29/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Odesa City Council (UADBK) to Limited Liability Company “YUNA-2019” to terminate the right to perform construction works.
2. The court dismissed the UADBK’s claim, based on the following:
* Firstly, the current legislation does not provide for such a method of protection as the termination of the right to perform construction works acquired on the basis of a notification.
if it does not contain unreliable data that is grounds to consider the object as unauthorized construction.
* Secondly, the SACAIC did not provide evidence of the existence of legally defined grounds for terminating the right to perform construction work.
* Thirdly, the restrictions on the minimum land plot areas for new residential construction, established by the State Building Codes (DBN), apply to design solutions of urban planning and land management documentation used in the allocation of land plots, and the application of this rule to the development of previously formed plots does not have sufficient regulatory basis.
* The court also noted that the newly formed land plot on which construction is being carried out is properly оформлена (registered), as it is registered in the State Land Cadastre, and the dispute does not concern the legality of entering information about it into the cadastre.
* The disagreement of the SACAIC with the registration actions regarding the entry of information about the newly formed plot into the State Land Cadastre does not indicate that the defendant submitted unreliable data in the notification or carried out construction in violation of regulations.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Odesa City Council, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 160/10425/24 dated April 29, 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 National Police in the Dnipropetrovsk Region (MDNP) to prepare and issue to PERSON_1 a certificate of the amount of monetary allowance for recalculation of the pension, taking into account the increase in the monetary allowance of police officers as of February 1, 2023.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, was guided by the following arguments:
* The basis for recalculating pensions is a change in the amount of at least one type of monetary allowance for the relevant categories of military personnel, carried out on the basis of a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
* The Concept of Increasing the Level of Monetary Allowance for Police Officers published on the Internet and official telegrams are not grounds for issuing a certificate, as they are not regulatory legal acts governing the monetary allowance of police officers.
* The courts of previous instances did not examine the evidence that the monetary allowance for the plaintiff’s last position increased in February 2023, and on what basis such an increase occurred.
* The courts did not take measures to clarify all the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not request the necessary evidence.
* The courts must properly motivate their conclusions and take into account that proof cannot be based on assumptions.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and to send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for proper clarification of all the circumstances of the case.
1. Subject of the dispute is the appeal of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the seizure of funds of “Ukrzaliznytsia” by abuse of office and entering false information into official documents.
2. The court, analyzing the case materials, established that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and reached a reasonable conclusion about the proof of guilt of the accused. The court noted that the arguments of the cassation appeals regarding the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case are unfounded, as they are based on a reassessment of the evidence that has already been assessed by the courts of previous instances. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the admissibility of using evidence obtained as a result of operational-search measures, if they were obtained in compliance with the requirements of the law. The court emphasized that in criminal proceedings, each party has the right to a fair trial, which includes the possibility of providing evidence, examining it, and assessing it by the court.
3. Court decision: The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961388″>**Case No. 520/1792/24 dated April 28, 2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961388)
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of the taxpayer. The court noted that from May 27, 2022, according to the amendments made to the Tax Code of Ukraine, the moratorium on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices was canceled. Taxpayers who did not register tax invoices issued from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2022, received additional time until July 15, 2022, to register them without penalties. The court also indicated that the taxpayer did not provide evidence of the impossibility of fulfilling its tax obligations, as provided for by Procedure No. 225, and also did not receive a certificate from the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry confirming force majeure circumstances. In addition, the court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments regarding the application of smaller penalties, since changes in legislation do not have retroactive effect.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961439″>**Case No. 320/6091/24 dated April 28, 2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961439)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Stratum Ukraine LLC of tax notice-decisions issued by the Central Interregional
regarding the increase in the amounts of monetary obligations for value-added tax, income tax, and personal income tax, as well as the decision of the State Tax Service of Ukraine on the results of the consideration of the complaint.
2. The court of cassation partially agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the illegality of the disputed tax notices-decisions, with the exception of the decision regarding personal income tax. The court noted that the operation of separating a new legal entity is not an object of VAT taxation, as it is not a supply of goods, and the transfer of property takes place within the framework of reorganization. Also, the court agreed that Stratum Ukraine LLC rightfully included rent payments in the cost of goods sold until amendments were made to the subsoil use agreement. In addition, the courts correctly took into account that the parties in the lease agreements had the right to establish that their terms apply to relations that arose before the conclusion of these agreements. Regarding personal income tax, the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not establish whether the plaintiff independently determined the disputed amounts, and whether the tax authority rightfully credited funds to repay the tax debt.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims regarding the tax notice-decision on personal income tax and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, and left the decision unchanged in the other part.
**Case №280/3562/23 dated April 29, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine regarding the phased payment of a one-time financial assistance, assigned in connection with the death of a serviceman.
The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of law, without clarifying which body is responsible for making payments and complying with the procedure for their implementation. The courts did not take into account that the decision to grant assistance is made by the Ministry of Defense, and the direct payment is made by another body, which allowed the phased payment, referring to Procedure No. 45. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should have established the proper defendant in the case and, if necessary, involved him in the proceedings. Since the courts of previous instances did not establish the factual circumstances that are relevant to the proper resolution of the case, this made it impossible to make a lawful and justified decision. The court of cassation pointed out the obligation of the court of first instance to establish the proper defendant and resolve the issue of his involvement in the case.
The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case №340/2494/24 dated April 28, 2025**
Good afternoon! I am happy to proceeI will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the tax authority’s decision to refuse registration of a tax invoice in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices (URTI).
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open appellate proceedings, referring to the fact that there is already a decision on the appeal of the same person (the State Tax Service of Ukraine) against this very court decision. In fact, the appellate court made a clerical error in its ruling, stating that the appeal was filed by the State Tax Service of Ukraine, although in reality it was filed by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kirovohrad region. The Supreme Court emphasized that the refusal to open appellate proceedings due to a judicial error that does not depend on the actions of the person deprives that person of the right to appeal, which contradicts the tasks of administrative justice. The court also took into account the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the inadmissibility of refusing access to appellate review due to court errors. Given this, the Supreme Court decided that there were no grounds for refusing to open appellate proceedings as provided for in paragraph 3 of part one of Article 299 of the CAS of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings and sent the case to the appellate court to continue the proceedings.
Case No. 640/26505/21 dated 04/29/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the Personnel Commission to dismiss the prosecutor from an administrative position and the order of the Prosecutor General to dismiss him from the position of First Deputy Head of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
2. The court based its decision on the fact that the procedure for dismissing a prosecutor from an administrative position differs from the procedure for bringing him to disciplinary responsibility, and the Personnel Commission did not act in the manner prescribed by law. The court noted that the Prosecutor General did not define a clear procedure for verifying the grounds for dismissing a prosecutor from an administrative position, as required by law, but only partially amended the existing procedure governing disciplinary proceedings. The court also took into account that at the time of the decision to dismiss the plaintiff, he was acting as the head of the regional prosecutor’s office, and not just the first deputy, and his performance was evaluated precisely as the head, not as the deputy. The court emphasized that dismissal from an administrative position is not a type of disciplinary responsibility, and the Personnel Commission did not have the authority to consider the issue of dismissal from an administrative position in the manner of disciplinary proceedings.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the illegality of the prosecutor’s dismissal.
Case No. 420/35624/23 dated 04/29/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax assessment notices, a tax demand, and a decision on the inventory of property into a tax lien issued by the tax authority.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim. The courts agreed with the lawfulness of the actions of the tax authority regarding the appointment and conduct of the audit, as the plaintiff was duly notified of its conduct. An important point is that the courts recognized the proper notification of the taxpayer about the decision of the controlling authority even in the event that the postal item was returned with a note about the absence of the addressee at the specified address, since the taxpayer is obliged to ensure receipt of correspondence at the registered address. The court also noted that since the plaintiff did not appeal the tax assessment notices in administrative procedure within the established period, the tax authority had the right to consider the tax liabilities agreed and issue a tax demand and a decision on the inventory of property into a tax lien. The court of cassation emphasized that the correct decision of the plaintiff was to simultaneously appeal all decisions, which would allow the courts to verify their legality as a whole.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
4/2025
Greetings! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the failure to accrue and pay a person inflationary increase of debt and 3% per annum in connection with the late payment of pension, assigned in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office.”
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, noted that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, the Law of Ukraine “On Compensation to Citizens for the Loss of Part of Income Due to Violation of Payment Deadlines” and the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance.” The court emphasized that the right to compensation for the loss of part of the pension due to violation of payment deadlines is guaranteed by law, and these guarantees extend to pensioners whose pensions are assigned in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office.” At the same time, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not examine the legal nature of the stated claims and their justification, did not clarify exactly which compensation (payment) the plaintiff is asking to recover from the defendant. The court also noted that it is not possible to refuse satisfaction of the claim only because the plaintiff incorrectly named the amount of compensation, because the court itself must determine which rules of law should be applied. Since the courts of previous instances did not establish all the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court cannot independently make a decision.
3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 320/4625/24 dated 04/28/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the tax notice-decision, by which JSC “ZNVKIF “FEU FINANCE” was fined for failure to submit reports on reportable accounts in accordance with the FATCA Agreement.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that at the time of the tax notice-decision, the norm of the Tax Code, which provided for responsibility for such a violation, had already been repealed. The courts of previous instances also found that the plaintiff is not a financial agent obliged to submit such reports, since joint investment institutions (corporate investment funds) do not fall under the category of non-bank financial institutions that are obliged to perform the duties of financial agents. In addition, the courts took into account that the tax authority did not provide proper evidence to confirm that the plaintiff was assigned a global intermediary identification number of the account holder. Also, the courts noted that responsibility under paragraph 118.4 of Article 118 of the Tax Code of Ukraine could not be applied to the plaintiff during the disputed audit, given the invalidity of this norm.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of pof the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 640/26505/21 dated 04/29/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Personnel Commission regarding the dismissal of the prosecutor from an administrative position and the order of the Prosecutor General regarding the dismissal from the position of the first deputy head of the regional prosecutor’s office due to improper performance of official duties.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed that the Personnel Commission did not have the authority to consider the issue of the prosecutor’s dismissal from an administrative position in the order of disciplinary proceedings, since these are different procedures with different grounds and consequences. The court noted that the Prosecutor General did not determine a separate procedure for considering such issues, but only made changes to the existing procedure for disciplinary proceedings, which does not grant the Personnel Commission the appropriate powers. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff was accused of improper performance of duties during the period when he was acting as the head of the prosecutor’s office, and not as the first deputy, and that the duties between them were not clearly distributed. The court emphasized that dismissal from an administrative position is not a type of disciplinary responsibility.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the illegality of the prosecutor’s dismissal.
**Case No. 400/5781/24 dated 04/28/2025**
Good afternoon! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the refusal to conduct pension indexation using certain coefficients for increasing the average wage indicator.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the plaintiff’s pension was indexed taking into account the average wage indicator that was used when the pension was granted, namely for 2014-2016. The court emphasized that, according to the second part of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance,” indexation should be carried out by increasing the very indicator of the average wage that was taken into account when the pension was granted. The court also noted that in the event of a conflict between the norms of the law and a by-law, preference is given to the law. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not challenge the legality of determining the size of the average wage indicator when granting the pension, but only the procedure for its application during indexation.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 320/34847/23 dated 04/28/2025**
Good afternoon! Let’s take a closer look at the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.
1. The subject
the subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Uzynskyi Sugar Plant” Additional Liability Company against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv Region.
2. The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreed with their conclusions. Obviously, the courts of previous instances sided with the taxpayer, that is, “Uzynskyi Sugar Plant” ALC. This may indicate that the tax authorities, in the opinion of the courts, did not have sufficient grounds for issuing the disputed tax assessment notices. There may have been violations in the procedure for conducting the audit, or the norms of tax legislation may have been incorrectly applied. Also, the courts could have taken into account the arguments of the taxpayer regarding the absence of violations of tax legislation or the existence of circumstances that exempt him from liability.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv Region, and to leave the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 280/1719/24 dated April 28, 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 application of penalties for violation of the Law on ROA.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following:
* The tax authority legitimately appointed an actual audit, as it had sufficient information about possible violations by the taxpayer of the law in the field of excise goods circulation.
* The order to conduct the audit contained the necessary details and references to the norms of legislation, which is a sufficient basis for its conduct.
* During an actual audit, the controlling body has the right to use information from the System of Accounting Data of Registrars of Settlement Operations (SAD ROA) to detect violations, in particular, the absence of mandatory details in fiscal receipts.
* The absence in the fiscal receipt of the digital value of the barcode of the excise tax stamp on alcoholic beverages is a violation of the requirements for the form and content of the settlement document, which entails liability in accordance with the Law on ROA.
* The appellate court did not take into account that the use by the tax authority of information from SAD ROA is a proper implementation of tax control.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim.
Case No. 520/9341/24 dated April 29, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the suspension of proceedings in the case regarding the appeal against the accrual of penalties on value-added tax and income tax.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to suspend the proceedings.
The court suspended proceedings in the case, considering that the issue of the legitimacy of penalty accrual is closely related to another case, where the decision of the tax authority regarding the possibility of the taxpayer fulfilling its obligations in a timely manner under martial law is being challenged. The court noted that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, a penalty is not accrued if the taxpayer did not have the opportunity to fulfill its obligations in a timely manner due to circumstances related to martial law. Since the case, the suspension of which is being discussed, resolves the issue of the possibility of accruing penalties for the period when, according to the plaintiff, he did not have the opportunity to fulfill his tax obligation in a timely manner, the outcome of the case, where the decision of the tax authority regarding the possibility of the taxpayer fulfilling his obligations in a timely manner is being challenged, affects the outcome of the case on appealing the penalty accrual. The court also took into account that the plaintiff had applied to the tax authority with a statement on the impossibility of fulfilling tax obligations before the relevant penalty accruals were made.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the ruling of the appellate court on the suspension of proceedings in the case remained unchanged.
**Case No. 460/23895/23 dated 04/29/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Western Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice regarding the prevention of repeated violations by the insolvency receiver in the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized the following arguments:
* The defendant formally approached the realization of the right of the insolvency receiver to involve the most experienced and highly qualified insolvency receivers in the audit, offering them to participate only one day before the signing of the audit report, which did not ensure the full realization of this right.
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that the involvement of such insolvency receivers is only a possibility, not an obligation of the control body, although the Procedure for Monitoring the Activities of Insolvency Receivers provides for the mandatory involvement of such persons at the initiative of the insolvency receiver.
* Failure to send the insolvency receiver all materials of the complaint and appeals, on the basis of which the audit was conducted, deprived him of the opportunity to provide reasoned explanations, which is a violation of the person’s right to participate in the decision-making process.
* Violations of the audit procedure affected its objectivity and impartiality, since the audit was conducted only on the basis of documents from the complainants, and the opportunity to provide their own explanations was limited.
* The court of first instance correctly established violations of the audit procedure, which are an independent basis for canceling the order.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, as
their prescription was recognized as illegal and cancelled.
Case No. 560/526/23 dated 29/04/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the delay in payment to a serviceman of the amounts due upon dismissal from military service.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the serviceman’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not take into account the changes in legislation, namely the new version of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which limits the period of payment of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal to six months (for the period after 19.07.2022). The court noted that it is necessary to distinguish between periods before and after 19.07.2022, applying different approaches to calculating the amount of compensation. Before 19.07.2022, the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the proportionality of the payment of average earnings to the amount of unpaid funds should be taken into account, and after this date – the limitation of payment to six months without applying the principle of proportionality. The court also emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case necessary for the correct application of the norms of substantive law.
The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 620/5134/24 dated 29/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by Clear Energy-Kherson LLC against tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Chernihiv Oblast.
2. The court of first instance satisfied the claims of Clear Energy-Kherson LLC, recognizing the tax notices-decisions as illegal and canceling them. However, the appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance in part, refusing to satisfy the claims regarding certain tax notices-decisions, motivating this by the fact that the business transactions between Clear Energy-Kherson LLC and its counterparty West Technology Group LLC were unreal due to deficiencies in the consignment note (absence of the driver’s signature) and the absence of warehouse premises at the counterparty. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, emphasizing that the absence of the driver’s signature on the consignment note and the absence of warehouse premises at the supplier are not sufficient grounds for recognizing the transaction as unreal if there is other evidence confirming the fact of the business transaction (agreement, invoice, payment documents). The court of cassation emphasized that the taxpayer should not be held responsible for deficiencies in the activities of the counterparty if it provided primary documents confirming the reality of the business transaction. Regarding other counterparties, the courts of previous instances agreed that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence toallegation of unreality of business transactions.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of Clear Energy-Kherson LLC, overturning the appellate court’s decision regarding the rejection of claims concerning specific tax assessment notices and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
[**Case No. 620/5134/24 dated 04/29/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961444)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal by Clear Energy-Kherson LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Chernihiv region.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of Clear Energy-Kherson LLC, noting that the appellate court erred in concluding the unreality of the company’s business transactions with Zakhid Tekhnolodzhi Hrup LLC and unlawfully overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recognition of the illegality of tax assessment notices concerning the reduction of the negative value of the corporate income tax object and the increase in the amount of the monetary obligation for value-added tax. The court of cassation emphasized that the absence of the driver’s signature on the goods transport waybill and the indication of the supplier’s legal address, where there are no warehouses, is not a sufficient basis for concluding the absence of a business transaction if other data indicate that the actual movement of assets or changes in the taxpayer’s equity or liabilities in connection with its business activities did occur. The court also noted that the tax authority did not provide evidence of the plaintiff’s concerted actions with the counterparty for the purpose of illegally obtaining a tax benefit or its awareness of such actions by the counterparty. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the lawfulness of the accrual of personal income tax and military levy on payments to individual entrepreneurs whose place of registration at the time of payment was in the temporarily occupied territory, since at that time the relevant list of such territories had not yet been approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the rejection of Clear Energy-Kherson LLC’s claims concerning tax assessment notices for corporate income tax and VAT, upholding the decision of the court of first instance in this part, and left the rest of the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
[**Case No. 640/11065/22 dated 04/29/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126961410)
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the resolution and order of the National Securities and Stock Market Commission (NSSMC) on the imposition of sanctions and the elimination of violations of legislation on capital markets and organized commodity markets regarding the Universal Commodity Exchange (UTB) “Contract House UMVB.”
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts
