Case No. 910/19921/23 dated 23/04/2025
Greetings! Let’s analyze this court decision.
The subject of this dispute was the claim of the Condominium Owners Association (OSBB) to cancel the state registration of the right of economic management of a state enterprise over certain non-residential premises in their building.
The court, in making its decision, was guided by the key distinction between auxiliary premises, which are the common joint ownership of all co-owners of the building, and non-residential premises, which are independent real estate objects. Courts of previous instances, having examined the technical passports of the disputed premises, concluded that these premises are isolated non-residential premises, and not auxiliary premises intended for serving the building or residents. The Supreme Court confirmed that establishing such factual circumstances falls within the competence of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court cannot re-evaluate evidence. Since the plaintiff (OSBB) did not prove that the disputed premises have the status of auxiliary premises, the courts reasonably denied the claim, as the absence of a violated right is an independent ground for refusal. The court also rejected the OSBB’s argument that the decision of their general meeting defined the premises as auxiliary, as the law does not empower the co-owners’ meeting to change the functional purpose of non-residential premises.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the OSBB’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to cancel the state registration.
Case No. 320/14196/23 dated 30/04/2025
Good day! I am happy to explain the essence of this court decision to you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal to include periods of work in the Russian Federation in the preferential insurance record for pension purposes and, accordingly, the lawfulness of the refusal to grant the pension on preferential terms.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, focused on procedural aspects, namely the correctness of the appellate court’s refusal to open appellate proceedings. The Court noted that the appellate court refused to open proceedings because it considered the reasons for missing the deadline for appeal to be disrespectful, as the first appellate appeal was returned due to non-payment of court fee. However, the Supreme Court referred to its established legal position regarding the possibility of renewing the deadline for appellate appeal in case of re-filing the appeal. The Court took into account that the Pension Fund first filed in time, re-filed within a reasonable time, and attempted to cure the defects of the first appeal (sent a payment order), which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, could indicate circumstances that were beyond the appellant’s control.
3. The Supreme Court cancelled the ruling of the appellate courtrefused to open proceedings and sent the case back to the court of appeal for a new decision on opening appeal proceedings, taking into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 420/29754/23 of 30/04/2025
Hello! I am happy to explain this decision. This is an interesting case concerning the right of citizens to obtain a passport.
The essence of the dispute was the lawfulness of the migration service’s refusal to issue a passport of a citizen of Ukraine in the form of a booklet to a minor girl who turned 14 years old.
The courts of first and appellate instances sided with the plaintiff, referring to the well-known position of the Supreme Court regarding the right of citizens to refuse a passport in the form of an ID card due to religious beliefs. However, in this case, the Supreme Court noted that the courts mistakenly applied that conclusion. The fact is that the previous case concerned a situation where a person refused processing of personal data and receiving a passport with an electronic carrier due to religious motives. In this case, the girl applied for her first passport at the age of 14, and when applying to the migration service, she did not declare religious beliefs. Furthermore, the migration service claimed that the girl already has a foreign passport, processed using the Register, which means consent to data processing and assignment of a unique number. The courts of previous instances did not verify this important circumstance, which can change the legal assessment of the situation, as the presence of such a number means that the person is already in the Register. Such incomplete clarification of circumstances is a violation of procedural law and makes a correct resolution of the case impossible.
Therefore, the Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance, so that it could thoroughly examine all the facts, in particular, the presence of a foreign passport and consent to data processing.
Case No. 240/33278/23 of 30/04/2025
This is a case regarding the recovery of costs for the upkeep of a former cadet of a military higher education institution after he prematurely terminated his contract due to unwillingness to study.
The Supreme Court explained that the lower courts mistakenly applied norms regulating the payment of monetary allowances to servicemen, instead of the special procedure for reimbursing expenses by cadets, which provides for the recovery of all actual expenses, including monetary allowance, in case of premature termination of the contract on certain grounds. The Court emphasized that a military educational institution has the right to apply to the court only after familiarizing the cadet with a detailed calculation of the amount to be reimbursed and giving him the opportunity to pay it voluntarily, and the cadet refuses. Since the courts of previous instances did not verify whether this specific procedure was followed, they did not clarify all important circumstancesавини справи та неправильно застосували закон.
У підсумку, Верховний Суд скасував рішення судів першої та апеляційної інстанцій і направив справу на новий розгляд до Житомирського окружного адміністративного суду для належного дослідження всіх обставин.
Справа №520/23251/24 від 29/04/2025
Предмет цього спору – це виплата Пенсійним фондом нарахованої суми пенсійної заборгованості, яка виникла на виконання попереднього судового рішення про перерахунок пенсії.
Суд керувався тим, що після ухвалення судового рішення, яке набрало законної сили і зобов’язало Пенсійний фонд перерахувати та виплатити пенсію, спір щодо самого права на такий перерахунок та суму виплати вже вирішено. Подальші дії, пов’язані з невиплатою нарахованої суми, стосуються вже не нового спору про право, а процесу виконання попереднього судового рішення. Кодекс адміністративного судочинства України передбачає спеціальні механізми судового контролю за виконанням рішень, зокрема, статтю 383, яка дозволяє позивачу звернутися до суду, що ухвалив рішення, із заявою про визнання протиправними дій чи бездіяльності, вчинених на виконання цього рішення. Наявність таких спеціальних механізмів виключає можливість подання окремого нового позову з вимогою про виплату сум, нарахованих на виконання вже існуючого рішення. Суд послався на свою послідовну правову позицію у подібних справах, підтверджуючи, що виконання судового рішення здійснюється у визначеному законом порядку (виконавче провадження або судовий контроль за виконанням), а не шляхом ухвалення нового судового рішення.
Верховний Суд змінив постанову апеляційного суду в частині мотивів, підтвердивши, що провадження у справі підлягало закриттю, оскільки спір не належить розглядати в окремому позовному провадженні за правилами адміністративного судочинства.
Справа №600/2758/22-а від 30/04/2025
Предметом цього спору є виплата колишньому поліцейському різних видів грошового забезпечення, які, на його думку, були йому недоплачені під час служби.
Суди першої та апеляційної інстанцій частково задовольнили позов, визнавши право позивача на індексацію грошового забезпечення, але відмовили у виплаті доплати за службу в нічний час та доплати за роботу в умовах безпосереднього контакту з населенням під час карантину. Відмовляючи у цих частинах, суди виходили з того, що позивач не надав достатніх доказів фактичного несення служби в нічний час та контакту з населенням, а відповідач стверджував про відсутність відповідних документів або наказів. Верховний Суд, переглядаючи справу, наголосив на принципах адміністративного судочинства, зокрема на обthe obligation of the subject of governmental authority to prove the legality of its actions or inactions and on the official clarification of all circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the absence of documents with the defendant confirming or refuting the fact of the plaintiff performing service at night cannot automatically deprive the plaintiff of the right to an additional payment, and the defendant was required to provide evidence of the destruction of these documents. Regarding the additional payment for quarantine, the Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not examine the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the submission of information about her work under such conditions, and the defendant’s reference to the lack of funding is not a basis for refusing payment if the right to it is provided by law.
3. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts in the part regarding the refusal to pay the additional payment for nighttime and the additional payment for work during quarantine and remitted the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 340/2467/24 dated 29/04/2025
Good day! Let’s review this court decision.
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the claim of a former military servicewoman for the calculation and payment to her of a lump-sum monetary assistance after concluding the first contract.
2. When considering this case, the Court proceeded from the fact that disputes regarding the monetary support of military personnel are equated to labor disputes concerning the payment of wages. Accordingly, the special period for applying to court, established by the Code of Labor Laws of Ukraine, which is three months, applies to them. The Court established that the plaintiff was removed from the personnel lists of the military unit on September 02, 2023, and the calculation of the period for applying to court begins precisely from this date. Thus, the three-month period expired on December 02, 2023, whereas the lawsuit was filed significantly later – on April 18, 2024. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the application of a different period or a different start date for calculation, noting that the norms she referred to regulate the period for which monetary support may be paid, and not the period for applying to court. Since the plaintiff missed the period established by law and did not provide valid reasons for its reinstatement, the courts of previous instances rightfully returned her statement of claim.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the return of the statement of claim due to missing the period for applying to court.
Case No. 280/5126/24 dated 30/04/2025
Good day! Let’s understand this Supreme Court decision.
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** This case concerns the correctness of the annual pension indexation carried out by the Pension Fund for a specific pensioner and the application of relevant increase coefficients to this process.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Court proceeded from the fact that the annual pension indexation, provided for by the Lawof Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, should be carried out by increasing the average salary indicator that *was actually taken into account* for calculating the pension of a specific person upon its appointment. The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of the rule of law, stating that the norms of subordinate acts, in particular, the Procedure of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 124, cannot contradict the law. Accordingly, the application by the Pension Fund of the average salary indicator as of 2017, as provided for by Procedure No. 124, instead of the actual indicator used for the plaintiff’s pension appointment, is unlawful. The Court confirmed that instead of establishing a fixed supplement of UAH 100, the Pension Fund should have applied indexation coefficients (1.197 and 1.0796) to the average salary indicator of UAH 10846.37, which was used when the plaintiff’s pension was appointed. However, the court also applied the general six-month period for filing a claim with the administrative court, as the disputed indexation amounts were not accrued by the Pension Fund, and therefore do not fall under the rule regarding the unlimited period for payment of unaccrued pension.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the claim, set aside the decisions of the previous instances, declared the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the non-indexation from December 4, 2023, unlawful, and ordered the recalculation and payment of the pension taking into account the appropriate indexation coefficients, while leaving the claims for the period before this date unexamined due to the expiration of the period for filing a claim with the court.
**Case No. 520/22859/23 dated 30/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s examine this court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute is the recovery from a military unit of average earnings in favor of a dismissed serviceman for a long delay in final settlement upon dismissal.
2. The Supreme Court considered the case based on the fact that the employer’s liability for delay in settlement upon dismissal is stipulated by Article 117 of the Labour Code of Ukraine. The Court took into account that since July 19, 2022, this article has been amended, limiting the period of recovery of average earnings to six months. Therefore, the court applied a two-period approach: for the period until July 19, 2022, it was guided by the previous version of the law without a time limit, but taking into account the principle of proportional reduction of the compensation amount depending on the share of unpaid funds. For the period after July 19, 2022, the court applied the new version of Article 117 of the Labour Code, limiting the recovery to six months, but without applying the principle of proportional reduction, as the new time limit already ensures proportionality. The Court established that the appellate court correctly determined the periods but erroneously applied the principle of reduction to the period after the change in legislation.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassationyjni appeals, amended the decision of the court of appeal instance and ordered the military unit to pay the plaintiff average earnings for the period of delayed settlement in the amount of 276,530 hryvnias 38 kopecks.
Case No. 260/1491/24 dated 30/04/2025
Good day! I am happy to explain the essence of this Supreme Court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute is challenging the decision of the state enforcement service body regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings and the requirement to oblige it to resume the execution of the previous court decision.
2. The main argument that guided the Supreme Court was that the courts of previous instances prematurely and without proper investigation established the date from which the plaintiff learned about the challenged decision on the termination of enforcement proceedings. The courts erroneously believed that the plaintiff learned about it from the date of the ruling in another case where this decision was only mentioned, without checking when exactly the plaintiff received this ruling, especially considering that the case was examined in written proceedings without his participation. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of adversarial proceedings and official ascertainment of all case circumstances, which require the court to establish the actual date of the person’s awareness of the violation of their rights. The Court noted that the courts should have determined the date the plaintiff received the court of appeal’s ruling in the previous case, and only then assess the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline, which the plaintiff cited (health condition, age, etc.), based on the correctly established period of delay.
3. In conclusion, the Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remitted the case for a new examination to the court of first instance for proper ascertainment of all circumstances.
Case No. 120/399/24 dated 30/04/2025
Greetings! Let’s analyze this Supreme Court decision.
The subject of this dispute is a serviceman’s claim against a military unit regarding the accrual and payment to him of increased additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 hryvnias for direct participation in combat actions and national security and defense measures during martial law.
The Supreme Court, analyzing the case, concluded that the court of appeal instance did not fully investigate all circumstances. The Court noted that the court of appeal prematurely rejected the certificate of the plaintiff’s participation in combat actions as evidence, without assessing it together with other materials, particularly reports regarding the payment of part of the remuneration for some disputed periods. The Supreme Court reminded that according to departmental orders that were in effect during the disputed period, confirmation of participation in combat actions could be based on one of the specified documents, and not necessarily on their totality. Furthermore, the court of appeal instance did not ascertain the key issue: what specific tasks and where the plaintiff performed them during his secondment in the disputed periods.The Court emphasized that the state cannot refuse payments if a person meets the conditions, and formal deficiencies in documentation should not deprive such a right.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back for a new review to the same appellate court for the proper establishment of all factual circumstances.
Case No. 460/19815/23 of 30/04/2025
Good day! Let’s analyze this Supreme Court decision.
This legal dispute concerns the legality of dismissing a judge’s assistant upon the judge’s initiative.
The court of cassation instance thoroughly analyzed the procedure for dismissing a judge’s assistant, which is regulated by the Law “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges” and the Regulation on Judge’s Assistant. It noted that a judge has the right to initiate the dismissal of their assistant by submitting a motion (подання), but this document must be properly executed. In this specific case, the judge submitted a statement about “withdrawing the submission for appointment” of the assistant, rather than a separate submission for their dismissal. The Supreme Court explained that a submission for appointment has a one-time effect and is exhausted by the fact of the person’s appointment to the position, therefore, termination of employment relations requires precisely a submission for dismissal. The Court emphasized that any personnel document must contain precise and clear wording, and a document that simultaneously withdraws a prior submission for appointment and uses this as grounds for dismissal is legally defective.
Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, which found the dismissal of the judge’s assistant illegal.
Case No. 520/27640/21 of 01/05/2025
Good day! Let’s analyze this Supreme Court decision.
1. This legal dispute concerns challenging tax assessment notices-decisions issued by the tax service based on the results of a scheduled documentary inspection of the enterprise.
2. The main argument of the court was that the tax inspection was conducted in violation of the procedure established by law. The Court reminded that for the period of the COVID-19 related quarantine, the Tax Code of Ukraine established a moratorium on conducting documentary and factual inspections. Although the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, by its resolution, attempted to shorten the duration of this moratorium for some types of inspections, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its established position: the norms of the Tax Code have higher legal force, and a resolution of the Government cannot change them. Thus, conducting a scheduled inspection during the moratorium established by the Code is illegal. This procedural violation is so significant that it renders the inspection report inadmissible evidence, and the tax assessment notices-decisions adopted on its basis – unlawful. The Court also noted that the illegality of the procedure itselfrevisions are an independent ground for the cancellation of tax decisions, and in such a case, the court may not analyze the substance of whether tax violations actually occurred.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax service and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which canceled the challenged tax assessment notices-decisions.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127021034](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127021034)
**Case No. 297/2047/21 of 23/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** This case concerns a lawsuit filed by the prosecutor in the interests of the state regarding the invalidation of a village council’s decision on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership right, as this land, according to the prosecutor’s office, belonged to a state research station.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court explained that in cases where a decision of a local self-government body on the transfer of land has already been executed by registering the ownership right in the name of another person, invalidating such a decision and canceling the registration is not an effective way of protecting the violated right. The Court emphasized that the proper instrument of protection in such a situation is a vindication claim – a demand for the reclamation of property from unlawful possession of another person. Satisfaction of a vindication claim is a sufficient ground for the re-registration of the ownership right to the state. The plaintiff’s choice of an improper way of protection is an independent ground for the dismissal of the lawsuit. Furthermore, the court noted that invalidating the decision regarding the entire plot, part of which may not be disputed, would be a disproportionate interference with the defendant’s right of ownership.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the appellate court, which had satisfied the lawsuit, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance on the dismissal of the lawsuit, but amended its reasoning part, indicating that the ground for dismissal is the prosecutor’s choice of an improper way of protection.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127021023](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127021023)
**Case No. 732/726/24 of 24/04/2025**
Good day! I am happy to explain this decision of the Supreme Court. This is an interesting case concerning where exactly land disputes should be heard when one of the parties is bankrupt.
So, simply put, the subject matter of this dispute was a lawsuit filed by the owner of a land plot against an agricultural cooperative-lessee for the early termination of the land lease agreement.
The essence of the Supreme Court’s decision comes down to determining the correct jurisdiction for hearing such a dispute. The Court considered that the defendant – the lessee – is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, and this is a key point. The Supreme Court referred to the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, which stipulate that all property disputes involving the debtor in a bankruptcy case must be heard exclusively by the commercial court that is handling this case. A very important aspect was ththat according to the latest amendments to land legislation, the right of lease of agricultural land is now an asset that the lessee can freely alienate, i.e., essentially sell or transfer as collateral without the owner’s consent. This makes the right of lease a property right that is included in the liquidation estate of the debtor. Accordingly, a dispute concerning the termination of such a lease agreement directly affects this liquidation estate. Since the bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent were commenced even before the court of first instance rendered its decision, the appellate court correctly concluded that this dispute should have been considered specifically in the commercial court within the framework of the bankruptcy case, and not in civil proceedings.
Thus, the Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, upholding its decision, and confirmed that this dispute is not subject to consideration in civil court proceedings.
1. The subject matter of this dispute is the claim of an heir by will for the determination of an additional term for filing an application for acceptance of inheritance, as he missed the six-month term established by law.
2. The Supreme Court, analyzing the case, drew attention to a key procedural point: who should be the respondent in such disputes. The Court stressed that a lawsuit concerning the determination of an additional term for acceptance of inheritance directly affects the rights of other heirs who have already accepted the inheritance. In accordance with the established practice of the Supreme Court, the proper respondents in such cases are specifically those heirs who have accepted the inheritance. If there are no such heirs, the respondent shall be the territorial community represented by the local self-government body at the place of opening of the inheritance. In this particular case, the courts of previous instances did not establish specifically who accepted the inheritance after the death of the testator and considered the case on its merits without the proper composition of respondents. The court of cassation instance concluded that without clarifying this issue and involving the proper parties, the assessment of the validity of reasons for missing the term is premature and incorrect.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance for the proper establishment of all circumstances and the composition of parties to the case.
1. The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the claim of a natural person for the early termination of a land plot lease agreement with an agro-industrial cooperative.
2. The main argument of the court of cassation instance, which supported the position of the appellate court, consisted in determining the proper jurisdiction for conregard to this dispute. The court took into account that the defendant – an agro-industrial cooperative – is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, and liquidation proceedings have been initiated against it. In accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures and the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, all property disputes where the debtor in bankruptcy proceedings is a party must be considered by the commercial court within the bankruptcy case. The court also drew attention to recent amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine (Article 93), which allow the lessee of agricultural land to alienate the right of lease without the owner’s consent, making this right a property asset. Thus, the dispute regarding the termination of the lease agreement affects the composition of the debtor’s liquidation estate, and therefore, is a property dispute subject to consideration in the commercial court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which closed the proceedings due to improper jurisdiction.
Case No. 1-10/02 dated 29/04/2025
Hello! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the proper court instance for reviewing, based on newly discovered circumstances, a ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, issued in 2004 following the cassation review of an appellate court verdict, rendered as a court of first instance under the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The court, in making its decision, proceeded from several key points. Firstly, it noted that under the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code, which was in force at the time of the case’s consideration, the appellate court acted as the court of first instance in cases of this category, and the Supreme Court of Ukraine reviewed its decisions as the higher instance. Secondly, the court referred to the established legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which clearly defined that the current Supreme Court (and not the appellate court) is competent to consider applications for review based on newly discovered circumstances regarding decisions of the former Supreme Court of Ukraine, issued concerning verdicts of appellate courts rendered by them as courts of first instance. Thirdly, the court emphasized the principle of instance hierarchy in the judicial system of Ukraine, according to which a lower instance court cannot review a decision of a higher instance court. Accordingly, the appellate court, being a lower instance compared to the former Supreme Court of Ukraine, did not have the authority to consider the application for review of its ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which returned the convicted person’s application for review based on newly discovered circumstances, confirming that such an application was submitted to the improper court.
Case No. 160/23093/24 dated 30/04/2025
Hello! Let’s understand this court decision.
1. **Subject of the dispute**This case concerns a pensioner challenging the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the non-implementation of proper indexation of his pension by increasing the average wage indicator which was taken into account when it was assigned, and obligating to perform such recalculation.**
**2. Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that pension insurance legislation provides for annual indexation of pensions by increasing the average wage indicator which was used for calculating the specific pension. The court established that there is a contradiction between the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” and a subordinate act of the Cabinet of Ministers (Procedure No. 124) regarding which specific average wage indicator is subject to indexation. Guided by the principle of the rule of law and the priority of law over a subordinate act, the court stated that the average wage indicator that is subject to indexation is precisely the one which was taken into account when assigning the pension, and not a fixed indicator as of 2017, as stipulated by Procedure No. 124. Accordingly, the Pension Fund had to apply the indexation coefficients established by the Cabinet of Ministers (1.14, 1.197, 1.0796) to the plaintiff’s average wage indicator. The court also took into account that the claims regarding pension recalculation are limited by a six-month period for filing a lawsuit, therefore, it satisfied them only for the period falling within this term, starting from February 24, 2024.
**3. Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the pensioner’s cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the previous instance courts in the relevant part, recognized the Pension Fund’s inaction regarding the non-implementation of pension indexation from February 24, 2024, with the application of the proper coefficients as unlawful, and obligated to perform such recalculation and pension payment.
Case No. 580/8848/24 dated 30/04/2025
Okay, let’s understand this Supreme Court decision.
1. **Subject of the dispute:** This case is about whether the Pension Fund lawfully refused the pensioner to carry out the indexation of her pension by increasing the average wage indicator which was used when assigning her pension, by the established coefficients.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court analyzed in detail the legislation on pension insurance and indexation. It drew attention to the fact that the Law “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” clearly defines that indexation is carried out by increasing the average wage indicator which *was taken into account for calculating the specific pension*. The court found that the Procedure of the Cabinet of Ministers, which regulates this indexation, contains a norm that contradicts the law by referring to the average wage indicator as of 01.10.2017. Referring to its previous conclusions, the Supreme Court confirmed that the law has priority over a subordinate act in case of their inconsistency. Thus, the court reachedconclusion that the Pension Fund should have applied indexation coefficients precisely to the average salary figure used when the plaintiff’s pension was awarded, and not limit itself to fixed additional payments. However, the court also established that the courts of previous instances did not examine an important procedural issue – whether the plaintiff adhered to the term for applying to court.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance for a proper examination of all circumstances, particularly regarding the term for applying to court.
**Case No. 686/32791/23 dated 23/04/2025**
Thus, this case concerned a request by the tax authority to the court for the disclosure of banking secrecy of an individual entrepreneur in order to obtain information about the movement of funds on his accounts for a tax audit.
The Supreme Court emphasized that banking secrecy is an important guarantee, and access to information about the movement of funds can only be obtained by the tax authority through the court, unless it is provided for by law without a court decision. The court noted that for such disclosure, the tax authority must not only have legal powers but also clearly justify the objective necessity of obtaining precisely the information it requests and the purpose of its use. In this case, the tax authority had the right to apply to court, as the entrepreneur did not provide documents during the audit. However, in the opinion of the court, the tax authority failed to properly justify why it needed *the entire* scope of information about the turnover of funds with all details about counterparties and payment purposes, precisely for the purpose of checking the correctness of payment of the single contribution. That is, the request was too broad compared to the justified need.
Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the application should be denied, but reached this conclusion on different legal grounds.
**Case No. 201/14/22 dated 23/04/2025**
Greetings! Let’s break down this court decision.
1. **Subject of dispute:** This is a case regarding the recognition of the dismissal of an employee due to staff reduction as unlawful, her reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the period of enforced idleness, and moral damages.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, agreed with the courts of previous instances that a reorganization and staff reduction indeed took place at the enterprise, and that the consent of the trade union for the plaintiff’s dismissal was not required, as she had left its membership. However, the court of cassation instance drew attention to the fact that the lower courts prematurely reached the conclusion that the employer had properly fulfilled its duty regarding the employment of the employee. In particular, it was not properly examined whether *all* vacant positions that appeared at the enterprise from the moment of the previdismissal and until the date of her actual dismissal. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out a significant procedural error: a branch of an enterprise, which is not a legal entity, cannot be a defendant in a civil case, and the proceedings against it should have been closed.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower instance courts, closed the proceedings in the case with respect to the claims against the branch, and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance with respect to the claims against the main enterprise (JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia”).
**Case No. 380/28883/23 dated 30/04/2025**
Greetings! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge of a tax assessment notice-decision by which the tax authority reduced the amount of the negative value of the corporate income tax base for 2017-2018.
2. The main arguments of the cassation court are that the courts of first and appellate instances did not fully examine the case. They overturned the tax decision, referring only to the fact that the tax audit was initiated during the moratorium established due to the quarantine. However, the cassation court noted that the tax authority insisted that the audit was suspended due to martial law, and then resumed and completed after the end of the quarantine moratorium, based on other provisions of the Tax Code. The Supreme Court stated that the lower instance courts did not properly assess these arguments of the respondent and did not ascertain whether the procedural violations in initiating the audit (if any) could have affected the correctness of the tax authority’s conclusions on the merits of the detected transfer pricing violations.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of first instance for a full and comprehensive examination of all circumstances.
**Case No. 620/8465/24 dated 30/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s analyze this Supreme Court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the procedure for conducting the plaintiff’s annual pension indexation, in particular, whether the average wage figure that was taken into account when calculating his specific pension should be increased.
2. The Supreme Court, analyzing the case, was guided by the fact that the Law “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” has higher legal force compared to sub-legislative acts such as Cabinet of Ministers resolutions and procedures. The Court confirmed its previously formulated legal position that pension indexation should be carried out by increasing precisely the average wage figure that was actually used to calculate the specific pension, and not a conditionally established baserate index. Accordingly, the provisions of the Procedure that contradict the Law in this part are not subject to application. Thus, the actions of the Pension Fund, which did not carry out the indexation of the plaintiff’s pension in the manner provided for by the Law, but applied a different mechanism (fixed surcharges), were deemed unlawful. At the same time, the court drew attention to the necessity of observing the time limits for applying to court, established by the Code of Administrative Procedure, as the right to judicial protection is not unlimited in time.
3. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, annulled the decision of the appellate court that denied the claim, left without consideration the plaintiff’s claims regarding indexation for the period until December 2023 due to missed time limit for applying to court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding the satisfaction of claims for the period from December 2023.
Case No. 320/45247/23 dated 30/04/2025
Greetings! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute at the cassation level is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the time limit for appealing the decision of the court of first instance due to missing the deadline and failure to remedy the deficiencies of the appellate appeal, specifically the non-payment of court fee.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering this case, was guided by the fact that the right to appellate appeal, although guaranteed by the Constitution, must be exercised in compliance with all procedural requirements, including the time limits for submission and payment of court fee. The Court emphasized that the return of an appellate appeal due to the failure to remedy deficiencies, as occurred for the first time, is not an automatic ground for reinstating the time limit upon repeated application. To reinstate the time limit, it is necessary to prove the validity of the reasons for missing it, which must be objective, insurmountable, and confirmed by proper evidence. The Court also noted that the lack of funds on the part of the subject of power for the payment of court fee is a subjective reason and is not considered a valid ground for missing the time limit. Since the tax authority did not remedy the deficiency in the form of non-payment of court fee upon repeated submission of the appeal and did not provide evidence of objective impossibility of its payment, the court concluded that there were no grounds for reinstating the time limit.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the SFS in the city of Kyiv unsatisfied, and the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to reinstate the time limit and open proceedings – unchanged.
Case No. 757/33358/18-ц dated 29/04/2025
Good day! I am happy to explain this decision of the Supreme Court to you.
This dispute before the Supreme Court concerned a procedural issue: whether the appellate court correctly returned the appeal submitted by the lawyer to the court’s email address and not through the “Electronic Court” system.
Dear journalists, in this case, the Supreme Court reviewedav, essentially, a technical but very important issue of access to justice in the context of digitalization. The court emphasized that according to the law, particularly after the changes introduced by Law No. 3200-IX, lawyers are obliged to use the “Electronic Court” system for submitting procedural documents. This differs from the rules for ordinary individuals who, under certain conditions, may send documents to the court’s official email address with an electronic signature. In this case, the lawyer submitted the cassation appeal specifically to the email address, citing technical problems in the “Electronic Court” system. However, the court noted that such references must be supported by proper evidence, such as appeals to the system administrator, which was not done. Therefore, the submission of a document by a lawyer not through the mandatory “Electronic Court” system constitutes a violation of the legally established procedure.
Given this, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal and upheld its ruling on the return of the appeal without changes.
Case No. 734/1087/23 dated 30/04/2025
Greetings! Of course, let’s analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute is the prosecution’s claim for the cancellation of the right of private ownership of a land plot located within a regional landscape park and forest fund, and its return to state ownership.
2. The court was guided by the fact that the disputed land plot is located on the territory of the “Mizhrychynskyi” Regional Landscape Park and belongs to lands of forestry designation, which have a special legal status. The legislation of Ukraine, in particular the Land Code and the Law “On the Nature Reserve Fund”, establishes strict restrictions on the privatization of such lands which are in state ownership. The transfer of this plot into private ownership occurred in violation of the established procedure, as the district state administration exceeded its powers, and the necessary approvals, including from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for particularly valuable lands, were absent. The court also noted that the defendant, in acquiring the right of ownership, should have exercised reasonable prudence and been aware of the status of this land as part of the nature reserve fund. Unlawful occupation of such a plot constitutes a continuous violation of the state’s ownership right. An effective means of protection in this situation is a negatory claim (on the removal of obstacles), which is not limited by the statute of limitations, and the cancellation of the defendant’s state registration of the right of ownership is necessary to restore the state’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which had satisfied the prosecution’s claim, without changes.
Case No. 732/582/24 dated 24/04/2025
Good day! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. **Subject of dispute:** This dispute concerns thetermination of the land lease agreement, concluded between an individual (the new land owner) and an agricultural cooperative undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
2. **Key arguments of the court:** The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, proceeded from the fact that after the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor (the cooperative), all property disputes involving it must be considered within the framework of these proceedings by the commercial court. The court took into account the latest changes to land legislation (Laws of 2021 and 2023), which allow the lessee of agricultural land to alienate the lease right without the owner’s consent. This means that the lease right is now a property asset that can be included in the debtor’s liquidation estate in bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, a dispute regarding the termination of such a lease agreement affects the composition and size of the liquidation estate. Thus, this dispute is a property dispute and is subject to consideration by the commercial court handling the cooperative’s bankruptcy case, and not by the civil court.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had annulled the first instance court’s decision and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the necessity of addressing the commercial court.
Case №908/1277/21 dated 01/05/2025
1. The subject of this dispute is the challenging of a tax notification-decision issued by the tax service.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text lacks the reasoning part of the Supreme Court’s ruling, where the court details its arguments and legal conclusions. Therefore, I cannot describe the exact considerations that guided the cassation court in annulling the decisions of the lower instance courts. Usually, in this part, the court analyzes the application of legal norms by the first and appellate instance courts, verifies compliance with procedural norms, and provides its own legal assessment of the disputed issues.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the tax service’s cassation appeal, annulled the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts, and sent the case for new consideration to the first instance court.
Case №320/7778/23 dated 30/04/2025
1. This dispute concerns the challenging of a tax fine for late registration of tax invoices issued before the start of the full-scale invasion.
2. The court was guided by the fact that although tax legislation provides for fines for violating the deadlines for registering tax invoices, during the quarantine and at the beginning of martial law, a moratorium on their application was in effect. The law that came into force on May 27, 2022, lifted this moratorium but established a transitional period until July 15, 2022for the registration of tax invoices issued from February to May 2022, without penalties. However, for invoices issued before February 2022, such a transitional period was not provided. The Supreme Court, referring to its previous practice, deemed such a distinction unfair and discriminatory, as both categories of invoices were protected by moratoriums due to extraordinary circumstances. The Court believes that the conditions of liability should be the same for all invoices protected by moratoriums until May 27, 2022. The application of a penalty without providing a reasonable period for registration after the lifting of the moratorium is an excessive burden for the taxpayer.
3. Considering this, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which annulled the tax penalty.
1. The subject of this dispute is the challenging of tax assessment notices and the decision on the application of penalties, issued by the tax service based on the results of a documentary inspection.
2. The Court, when rendering the decision, was guided by several key arguments. Firstly, regarding RRO penalties during the sale of alcohol, the court noted that the tax service failed to prove that the alcohol was marked with new excise tax stamps with a barcode, as the legislation requires the display of the numerical value of the barcode only for such stamps, and not for stamps of the old design. Secondly, regarding VAT on tobacco products, the court indicated that the tax service failed to distinguish between the sale of products acquired before and after the change in VAT taxation rules from 01.01.2022 (when exemption for subsequent supplies was introduced), which makes its conclusions unfounded. Thirdly, the court deemed the tax service’s conclusion regarding the necessity of allocating VAT tax credit for dual-purpose goods/services unfounded, as it was not proven that the taxpayer simultaneously carried out taxable and non-taxable transactions with these specific assets. Finally, the court confirmed that penalties for untimely calculation of Single Social Contribution (SSC) for the period from the start of martial law until 01.08.2023 are not applied according to the transitional provisions of the law. The Court also confirmed the legality of recovering legal assistance costs, considering them proportionate and properly confirmed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the tax service and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially annulled the tax assessment notices and penalty decisions, and also recovered legal assistance costs.
1. The subject of this dispute is the legality of the defendant’s actions regarding the determination of specificspecific amounts of the allowance for specifics of service and bonus in the certificate of monetary support issued for the recalculation of the plaintiff’s pension.
2. The court of cassation instance, i.e., the Supreme Court, concluded that the lower courts were mistaken in refusing to open proceedings. They considered this dispute to be identical to the previous one, which concerned the obligation to issue an updated certificate of monetary support based on the subsistence minimum as of 01.01.2023. However, the Supreme Court explained that the previous decision only obliged the issuance of a certificate taking into account certain basic indicators (position salary and rank salary, calculated based on the subsistence minimum as of 01.01.2023). In contrast, in this new case, the plaintiff is challenging precisely the *method of calculation* and the *specific amounts* of other components of monetary support (allowances and bonuses) that the defendant included in the issued certificate, considering them incorrect. Since the issue of the correctness of the calculation of these specific components was not the subject of consideration in the previous case, this constitutes a new dispute that must be considered by the court on its merits, and not dismissed as identical.
3. The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the refusal to open proceedings and sent the case back to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 480/4018/23 of 01/05/2025
Good day! Of course, let’s analyze this court decision.
1. The subject matter of the dispute in this case was the challenge by the prosecutor of an order of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine and a special permit for subsoil use for the extraction of oil and gas issued based on it.
2. The court, in making its decision, was guided by the established legal position, according to which the time limit for filing a claim for subjects of authority powers, such as a prosecutor, begins to be calculated from the moment the grounds for the claim arise, i.e., from the moment the challenged actions are performed or decisions are adopted, and not from the date when the prosecutor learned about the violation. In this case, the challenged order and permit were issued in 2016, and it was from these dates that the three-month time limit for filing a claim began to run. The court also took into account that the prosecutor’s office as a single system had the objective possibility to learn about the circumstances of the issuance of this permit as early as 2017 within the framework of criminal proceedings, and the local prosecutor’s office was aware of the fact of violation of state interests at least since 2021. The court emphasized that the prosecutor’s request for documents to confirm the grounds for representation does not suspend or extend the legally established time limit. Since the claim was filed only in 2023, i.e., significantly later than the established time limit, and the prosecutor did not provide valid reasons for missing it, the lower courts rightfully left the claim without consideration.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirmingand the legality of leaving the prosecutor’s claim unexamined due to missing the deadline for filing a claim with the court.
**Case No. 758/8032/17 dated 23/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s analyze this court decision.
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff requested declaring the contract of sale of a share in a residential building and a land plot invalid due to the violation of her pre-emptive right as co-owner to purchase.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court of cassation focused on examining the plaintiff’s arguments that the courts of previous instances considered the case without proper notification of her and her representative about the date of the court hearing. The Supreme Court examined the case materials and established that the plaintiff’s representative indicated their official email address in the application to the court of first instance. The court of first instance sent a summons for the court hearing specifically to this email address, which is confirmed by the delivery certificate. Furthermore, the cassation appeal itself was filed by the representative through the electronic cabinet using the same address, which indicates its active use. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff and her representative were duly notified of the consideration of the case. The court also noted that the claim for the transfer of the buyer’s rights and obligations, stated in the cassation appeal, was not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance, and therefore cannot be considered by the court of cassation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, which denied the satisfaction of the claim.
**Case No. 140/4486/24 dated 30/04/2025**
The case concerns the challenge by an individual entrepreneur of the customs decision on adjusting the customs value of an imported bus and the refusal card for customs clearance at the declared value.
Dear colleagues, in this case, the Supreme Court considered the legality of the customs actions regarding the adjustment of the customs value of the goods. The Court emphasized that customs authorities have the right to request additional documents to confirm the declared value, but only in the presence of substantiated doubts. In this case, the appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that such doubts arose due to the discrepancy in the value of the goods indicated in the invoice and the export declaration of the country of dispatch. The Court noted that the declarant did not provide any explanations or evidence that would eliminate this discrepancy, although it is the declarant’s responsibility to prove the accuracy of the declared customs value. Furthermore, the Court dismissed arguments about improper request for documents, as the declarant himself claimed the absence of other documents. The Supreme Court, as a court of law, did not re-evaluate the factual circumstances established by the appellate court, but firstreviewed only the correctness of the application of legal norms.
Following the review, the Supreme Court dismissed the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal, upholding the legality of the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 320/31761/23 dated 30/04/2025
Good day! Let’s review this court decision.
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The tax authority filed a lawsuit with the court regarding the forced collection of tax debt from a private entrepreneur.
2. **Main arguments of the court:** The court of cassation instance confirmed the legality of the tax authority’s actions and the decisions of the courts of previous instances. It emphasized that, according to the Tax Code of Ukraine, the right to forced collection of tax debt through court arises no earlier than 30 days after sending the tax claim to the taxpayer. Key to the case was the application of the norm that clearly defines: if the amount of debt increases after the first tax claim is sent, a new claim is not sent, and the initial claim remains valid and extends to the entire current amount of debt on the day of its repayment. Thus, the entrepreneur’s argument about the necessity of sending additional claims for the increased amount of debt was found to be erroneous. The court also considered arguments regarding the written review of the case in the appeal but did not find in this a violation of the right to a fair trial, as the dispute concerned primarily legal issues, rather than complex factual circumstances.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the entrepreneur’s cassation appeal, and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances on the collection of tax debt unchanged.
Case No. 160/22777/21 dated 30/04/2025
Good day! Let’s review this court decision.
1. The subject of this dispute is challenging the actions of the Derzhheokadastr (State Geocadastre) bodies regarding the change of codes of targeted purpose of two land plots in the State Land Cadastre and obliging them to enter other codes.
2. The Supreme Court, analyzing the decisions of the courts of previous instances, concluded that they did not fully investigate all the circumstances of the case and did not provide a proper legal assessment of the defendants’ actions. The court of first instance granted the claim, but did not substantiate why the entered records should be cancelled and a specific new code should be entered, only stating the lack of authority of Derzhheokadastr to change the targeted purpose without a land management project and a violation of the application submission procedure. The appellate court, dismissing the claim, focused mainly on issues of normative monetary valuation and the land user’s responsibility for the accuracy of data in the cadastre, but did not properly analyze the legal norms governing the procedure for determining and changing targeted land use codes, particularly the transition between classifiers. The Supreme Court emphasized that both courts did not
