**Case No. 752/10464/22 dated 04/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed repeatedly under martial law.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, reasoning that the appellate court overturned the local court’s judgment in the part concerning the conviction of a person for one of the episodes of theft, and closed the criminal proceedings in this part due to the loss of force of the law establishing the criminal illegality of the act. In this regard, the provisions of Article 71 of the Criminal Code (regarding the aggregate of judgments) are not applicable, since another episode of theft for which the person was convicted was committed before the previous judgment was rendered. The court also took into account that the person was released from serving the sentence with probation under the previous judgment, therefore, this judgment must be executed independently. The court of cassation referred to the legal position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, set forth in the ruling of February 15, 2021, according to which, if a person is released from serving a sentence with probation, and then his guilt is established in other crimes committed before this judgment, the previous judgment is executed independently, if it remains unchanged.
3. The court of cassation satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal: excluded from the court decisions the indication of the imposition of the final sentence on the basis of Article 71 of the Criminal Code and ordered the judgment of the Vasylkiv City District Court to be executed independently.
**Case No. 759/5687/22 dated 05/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the convicted PERSON_7, accused of committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Article 309, Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of November 19, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, and ordering a new hearing in the court of appellate instance. The court made this decision, presumably, due to detected violations of the norms of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case, which could have affected the legality and validity of the ruling. At the same time, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for PERSON_7 in the form of detention for a period of 60 days, which may indicate the presence of risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which the appellate court did not take into account or did not take into account properly. This decision emphasizes the importance of the appellate court’s compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law when reviewing court decisions.
The court
reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Case No. 632/248/15 dated May 1, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of attempted murder and intentional murder, in the part of the closed criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court. The court does not provide detailed arguments in the operative part, but it can be assumed that certain violations of procedural law or incomplete investigation of the circumstances of the case by the appellate court were discovered, which became the basis for overturning the ruling. It is possible that the prosecutor in his cassation appeal pointed to the inconsistency of the appellate court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case or to the incorrect application of substantive law. For a complete understanding of the reasons for the cancellation, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the decision, which will be announced later. It is important that the Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, actually indicates the need for a more thorough review of the case by the appellate court.
The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 1-499/11 dated May 2, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding PERSON_3.
The judge of the Supreme Court, considering the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, established that the criminal case regarding PERSON_3 was requested and received by the court. There were no grounds that would prevent the case from being scheduled for consideration. The judge was guided by the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 and the Transitional Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 2012, taking into account the amendments made by the Law of Ukraine. The judge emphasized the absence of obstacles to the consideration of the case in cassation proceedings. She also pointed out the need to notify the participants in the trial of the date, time, and place of the hearing.
The court scheduled the criminal case regarding PERSON_3 for consideration in cassation proceedings on September 18, 2025.
Case No. 520/18946/23 dated May 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax assessment notices, which increased the amount of his monetary obligations for personal income tax, military tax, excise tax, and applied penalties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts
of instances, noting that the sole proprietor had not provided evidence of notifying the tax authority of the change of registration address, therefore the notifications of the audit were considered duly served. The court also emphasized the obligation of taxpayers to provide the supervisory authorities with all necessary documents for the audit and to keep them for the established period. Regarding the erroneous fiscal check, the court noted that the sole proprietor did not draw up an act on the cancellation of the erroneous transaction, as provided for by the Procedure, and did not provide an accounting certificate during the audit. The court also took into account information from tax databases, which indicated an underestimation of the entrepreneur’s income. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal, as they did not refute the circumstances of violations of tax legislation established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 990/37/24 dated 05/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the Decree of the President of Ukraine regarding the enactment of the NSDC decision on the application of sanctions to an individual.
The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the President acted on the basis, within the powers and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, in particular the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions”. The court noted that the NSDC decision is binding, and the Presidential Decree is a form of implementation of this decision. The court also took into account that sanctions are an instrument for protecting the national security of Ukraine in the context of armed aggression, and their application is justified. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of the illegality of the appealed Decree. In addition, the court took into account the discretionary powers of the NSDC and the President when making decisions in the field of national security and defense.
The court decided to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 990/250/24 dated 05/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU).
The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the illegal inaction of the HQCJU. The court noted that the HQCJU acted within its powers and in accordance with current legislation. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff did not address the HQCJU with specific requirements regarding which it would be possible to assert the commission’s inaction. The court emphasized that the burden of proving illegal inaction rests with the plaintiff, and in this case, this obligation was not fulfilled. In addition, the court took into account the arguments of the HQCJU representative, which indicate
regarding the absence of violations in the commission’s activities.
The court decided to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 705/1645/20 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal sale of narcotic drugs).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, emphasizing that the conclusions about the guilt of PERSON_7 are based on objectively clarified circumstances, confirmed by evidence that was duly investigated and evaluated. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the illegality of the scene examination, noting that PERSON_7 voluntarily handed over the narcotic drugs and also confirmed their hiding place. The court also disagreed with the arguments regarding violations in obtaining temporary access to banking documents, as the access procedure was initiated within the term of the investigating judge’s ruling. The court noted that the appellate court thoroughly reviewed all the arguments of the appeal and provided exhaustive answers to them, and no significant violations of the criminal procedure law that could affect the legality and validity of court decisions were found.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the defender, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/11833/23 dated 05/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of LLC “CPG Energy” of UAH 1,709,109.43 of unreasonably received funds, which the plaintiff paid for electricity transmission services during the export of electricity.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the established fee for the transmission of exported electricity volumes is a measure similar to a customs duty, which contradicts Article 41 of the Energy Community Treaty. The court noted that Ukraine, having ratified this Treaty, undertook to comply with its provisions, and the accrual of fees for the transmission of exported electricity violates these international obligations. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the appellate court did not take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as these conclusions were made in other cases with other factual circumstances. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument about the need to deviate from the legal position stated in the постанові (resolution/ruling) of the Supreme Court dated August 3, 2022 in case No. 910/9627/20, as it did not find sufficient grounds for this. The court emphasized that the appellate court correctly applied the provisions of the law, includinginternational, taking into account the latest legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/16093/18 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of the certificate for a trademark for goods and services as invalid and the obligation to perform certain actions.
The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision, was guided by the fact that the appellate court did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. In particular, the appellate court did not take into account the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the similarity of trademarks for goods and services, which could mislead consumers. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and the need for a thorough analysis of evidence in such disputes. Also, the Supreme Court took into account the conclusions of the court of first instance, which were more reasonable and supported by the case materials. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess these circumstances, which led to an incorrect resolution of the dispute.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s decision, and uphold the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 138/2725/20 dated 24/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional grievous bodily harm, hooliganism, and encroachment on the life of a law enforcement officer.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling because the appellate court did not comply with the instructions of the cassation court set out in the previous ruling, in particular, it did not check all the arguments of the defense’s appellate complaints regarding significant violations of the criminal procedure law and the inadmissibility of evidence, as well as the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of the provisions of Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the crediting of the term of pre-trial detention. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the defense’s arguments regarding the vagueness of the charges, violation of the principle of immediacy of evidence examination, inadmissibility of certain evidence, and did not take into account the circumstances relevant to the correct application of Part 5 of Article 72 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the time of commission of the crimes and the application of preventive measures. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that, from the objective side, hooliganism may be accompanied by particular audacity or exceptional cynicism, that is, the person’s actions may have two characteristics at the same time
identically) or only one of them.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention.
Case №148/1726/23 dated 01/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_9 for murder for mercenary motives, robbery, theft of documents and illegal seizure of a vehicle.
2. The cassation court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions regarding the proof of PERSON_9’s guilt. The court noted that the mercenary motive for the murder is confirmed by the financial situation of the convict, his debt obligations and actions aimed at seizing the victim’s property. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the lack of a mercenary motive and the existence of personal relations between the convict and the victim, pointing to their refutation by the testimony of witnesses and other evidence. The court also found the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment to be justified, taking into account the severity of the crimes, aggravating circumstances and data about the convict’s personality. The court agreed with the decision regarding the civil claim, in particular, regarding compensation for the cost of stolen gold products and legal aid costs, recognizing them as justified and documented. The court also rejected arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence obtained during investigative actions, noting that no violations that would affect their reliability were established.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case №522/13284/24 dated 01/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Odesa Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings on the charge of PERSON_6 in the commission of intentional murder (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to another court of appeal, namely the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal, due to the existence of circumstances that make it impossible for the Odesa Court of Appeal to hear the case.
The Supreme Court, granting the submission of the Odesa Court of Appeal, was guided by Articles 34, 376, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC of Ukraine). The court took into account the circumstances that prevent the objective and impartial hearing of the case by the Odesa Court of Appeal. According to Article 34 of the CPC of Ukraine, criminal proceedings may be transferred to another court if circumstances have arisen that cast doubt on the possibility of this court rendering a lawful and impartial decision. In this case, O
