**Case №576/2279/20 of 04/30/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the annulment of the city council’s decision to terminate the contract with the chief physician of the communal enterprise, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim. The courts established that the city council had the authority to make decisions on the dismissal of the head of the communal enterprise, as the management of the enterprise was assigned to its competence according to the new version of the statute. The courts also established that the plaintiff violated the terms of the contract by allowing untimely payment of wages to hospital employees. The court took into account that the legality of the decision to approve the new version of the statute had already been confirmed in another court case. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, but rather amount to disagreement with the established circumstances and re-evaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case №761/13101/21 of 04/30/2025**
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of gift and sale agreements for an apartment as invalid, as well as the establishment of a mortgage on this apartment to secure the fulfillment of obligations under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation, in overturning the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the following arguments:
* The plaintiff, as the legal successor of the bank, missed the statute of limitations, as the bank had the opportunity to learn about the violation of its rights regarding the failure to conclude a mortgage agreement and the alienation of the apartment much earlier than the plaintiff claims. The bank, knowing about the improper fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement since 2010, did not take timely measures to control the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement regarding the execution of the mortgage.
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that the defendant, who acquired ownership of the apartment, cannot claim the application of the statute of limitations regarding claims that are not directly addressed to him, since the satisfaction of these claims leads to the deprivation of his ownership right.
* The court of cassation emphasized that a bona fide mortgagee should be characterized by the standard of conduct of an average reasonable and prudent mortgagee.
* The court of cassation indicated that the circumstances of the change of creditor in the obligation, as well as the change of owners of the apartment, do not affect the running of the statute of limitations.
* The court of cassation noted that the opposite approach indicates an unlawful interference with the right to property, which is guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitution of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court.
regarding the satisfied claims and upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim.
**Case No. 522/20810/19 dated 05/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of compensation for violation of имущественных авторских прав, namely the reproduction and distribution of учебных пособий, co-authored by the plaintiff, without his permission.
2. The court, in satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the university posted on its website учебные пособия, which are reproductions of original works, co-authored by the plaintiff, without obtaining permission to do so. The court found that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s имущественные авторские права by reproducing and distributing counterfeit copies of the works. In doing so, the court took into account the conclusion of an expert study, which confirms the fact of reproduction of the plaintiff’s works in the учебных пособиях posted on the university’s website. The court also took into account that the defendant did not refute the fact of copyright infringement, but only provided a certificate of registration and removal of the disputed works from the site. The amount of compensation was determined by the court on the basis of the minimum wage established at the time of applying to the court, taking into account the number of violations (reproduction and distribution of two works).
3. The court of cassation left the university’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 759/17288/21 dated 09/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the state registration of ownership of apartments formed from the attic of an apartment building, and the elimination of obstacles to the use of this property.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they did not establish the legal regime of the disputed premises (whether they are auxiliary), did not properly assess the arguments of the plaintiffs regarding the violation of their rights as co-owners of the apartment building, and, as a result, did not determine the appropriate and effective way to protect the violated rights. The courts of previous instances did not take into account that in order to protect the rights of co-owners of an apartment building to auxiliary premises, it is not necessary to file a vindication claim. The court noted that the courts should have established which specific rights and interests of the plaintiffs were violated, and what result they wanted to achieve by going to court. The court also indicated that the courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations regarding the impossibility of alienating auxiliary premises of an apartment building as a separate object of civil rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 4823/359/24 dated 05/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for the issuance of an enforcement document based on a decision of a foreign court (USA).
regarding the recovery of alimony for minor children.
2. The court granted the application for the issuance of a writ of execution, based on the following: there is no treaty on legal assistance between Ukraine and the United States, therefore the principle of reciprocity applies, which is presumed unless proven otherwise; the debtor did not provide evidence of appealing the decision of the foreign court; the decision of the foreign court has entered into legal force, as confirmed by the order of the US court; documents issued in the United States are certified with an apostille and a notarized translation; the court did not establish grounds for rejecting the motion, as provided for in Article 468 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeal amount to a reevaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court. In addition, the court of cassation instance recovered from the debtor in favor of the creditor the costs of professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance, since the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the interested party did not provide objections regarding the non-compliance of the claimed costs with the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 560/1787/23 dated May 7, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the customs’ decision on the adjustment of the customs value of goods and the card of refusal of customs clearance.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the plaintiff provided sufficient documents to confirm the customs value of the goods at the contract price, and the customs did not prove the existence of reasonable doubts about the reliability of the declared value. The court indicated that the customs authority did not substantiate on the basis of which customs declaration the specific customs value was adjusted for each item, and did not substantiate the numerical value of the customs value of the goods adjusted by the customs authority, and the facts that influenced such adjustment, in particular, explanations regarding the adjustments made. Also, the court noted that the customs authority’s assertion about the possible influence of related parties on the declared value is an assumption, not supported by evidence. The court also took into account that the plaintiff provided documents confirming payment for the goods at the declared price. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court recognized them as commensurate with the complexity of the case and the amount of work performed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Khmelnytskyi Customs and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 532/2190/22 dated May 7, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_7 of the appellate court’s judgment regarding his conviction under Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft, combined with unlawful entry into a dwelling).
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decision of the appellate court. The operative part does not contain any arguments that guided the court of cassation instance, only
The decision to uphold the appellate court’s judgment is stated without changes. The absence of a reasoning part makes it impossible to analyze the court’s position and the grounds for the decision.
The Court ruled: The judgment of the Poltava Court of Appeal of September 23, 2024, regarding PERSON_7 shall remain unchanged, and his cassation appeal shall be dismissed.
Case No. 463/11488/20 dated 05/07/2025
The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of PERSON_6.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied PERSON_6’s cassation appeal, overturning the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal refusing to open proceedings and ordering a new hearing in the appellate instance. In fact, the Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open proceedings, pointing to the need for a re-examination of the appeal. The court of cassation, presumably, established certain violations of the rules of procedural law, which became the basis for overturning the decision of the court of appellate instance and referring the case for a new appellate review. At the same time, the specific reasons that guided the Supreme Court will be set out in the full text of the resolution, which will be announced later. During the new hearing, the appellate court must take into account the instructions of the court of cassation and make a lawful and reasoned decision.
The Court ruled: The ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal shall be overturned and a new hearing shall be ordered in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 910/15852/23 dated 04/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from “Tropical Park” LLC in favor of “Budmontazh Realty” LLC of debt on compensation for the cost of consumed thermal energy.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the closure of proceedings in the case, since it established the identity of the parties, the subject matter and the grounds of the claim with another case that had already been considered and for which a decision had been made that had entered into legal force; The Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff cannot re-apply to the court with the same claim, changing only some circumstances or legal justification, since this is an attempt to review the previous court decision; The Supreme Court noted that adding new evidence or referring to other legal norms does not change the essence of the dispute if the main circumstances and requirements remain the same; The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts had already assessed the evidence provided by the plaintiff in the previous case, and their re-evaluation in the new proceedings is unacceptable; The Supreme Court indicated that the plaintiff knew about the existence of additional evidence (tax reporting) during the consideration of the previous case, but did not provide it in time, which also indicates an attempt to review the previous decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Budmontazh Realty” LLC and upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the постанову (resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 910/5814/24 dated May 6, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of LLC “TMO “LIKO-HOLDING” and LLC “UC “VENICE” to transfer technical documentation for an apartment building to the Homeowners Association “VENICE 10/1”.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defendants. Regarding LLC “UC “VENICE”, the court agreed with the previous court decisions, emphasizing that the manager of the apartment building has the obligation to transfer the technical documentation to the Homeowners Association, referring to the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Homeowners Associations”. The court noted that this obligation is unconditional and does not depend on the availability of documents from the manager, as the latter had to obtain them from the developer or restore them in case of absence. Regarding LLC “TMO “LIKO-HOLDING”, the court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, indicating that the claim against the developer was filed groundlessly, since there is a presumption of transferring technical documentation to the manager, and it is the proper defendant in this dispute. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances did not specify in which part the decision relates to each of the defendants, which is a violation of procedural law.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims against LLC “TMO “LIKO-HOLDING” and issued a new decision to dismiss the claim in this part, and in the part of satisfying the claims against LLC “UC “VENICE” the decision was left unchanged.
Case No. 420/30227/24 dated May 7, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the military unit’s refusal to release the plaintiff from military service during martial law due to the need to care for a mother with a Group I disability.
2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully fulfill the obligation to comprehensively and fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, they did not investigate the family ties between the plaintiff’s mother with a disability and other persons registered at her place of residence, which is important for determining potential care responsibilities. The court emphasized the active role of the court in the administrative process, which is obliged to take measures to clarify all the circumstances of the case, including by identifying and requesting evidence on its own initiative. The court pointed out the inconsistency and incoherence of the motives and conclusions of the court of appeal, which creates a state of legal uncertainty. The court noted that for dismissal from military service, the existence of one of the conditions is sufficient: the absence of other family members of the first or second degree of relationship of such person or other family members of the first or second degree of relationship themselves need constant care. The court took into account that the case was considered by the court of first instance in the order of simplified proceedings without calling the parties, which could affect the compl
investigation of the circumstances.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/10005/24 dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation to perform certain actions, initiated by “Trans-Garant” LLC against “Akris Agro Group” LLC.
In this case, the courts of first and appellate instances closed the proceedings, but the Supreme Court did not agree with this. The panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court, considering the cassation appeal of “Trans-Garant” LLC, found that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the norms of procedural law, which led to the unjustified closure of the proceedings in the case. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need for a full and comprehensive consideration of the case on its merits, taking into account all the circumstances and provided evidence. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to a fair trial and access to justice.
The decisions of the courts of previous instances were overturned, and the case was sent to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 500/3352/24 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Department of the State Migration Service of Ukraine in the Ternopil Region (DSMS) to accept the declaration of renunciation of citizenship of the Russian Federation, submitted by a citizen of Ukraine who had previously acquired Ukrainian citizenship, being a citizen of the Russian Federation.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that in order to accept the declaration of renunciation of foreign citizenship, it is necessary to establish the existence of reasons independent of the person for not obtaining a document on the termination of foreign citizenship. The court noted that a person must take active steps to terminate foreign citizenship, in particular, apply to the competent authorities of the relevant state. In the case of citizenship of the Russian Federation, even after the severance of diplomatic relations between Ukraine and Russia, citizens of Ukraine are not deprived of the opportunity to apply to the diplomatic missions of the Russian Federation in other countries. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of such actions after February 24, 2022, the refusal of the DSMS to accept the declaration is lawful. The court also took into account that there are certain conditions under which the DSMS may accept a declaration of renunciation of citizenship of the Russian Federation, in particular, if the person applied to the authorized body of the Russian Federation with a request to terminate citizenship both before and after February 24, 2022, but did not receive a response or received a refusal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the claims for recognition of the illegality of the DSMS’s refusal to accept the declaration of renunciation of citizenship of the Russian Federation and obliging the DSMS to accept such a declaration.
Case No. 219/1639/19 dated 15/04/2025
1.
The subject of the dispute is the defender’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s decision regarding the conviction of a person for theft, robbery, and illegal seizure of documents.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, but amended the court decisions of the previous instances. The court noted that the appellate court properly reviewed the arguments of the appeal and reasonably upheld the verdict of the court of first instance, taking into account the totality of evidence, including the testimony of the accused, the victims, the protocols of investigative actions, and the expert opinions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused’s claims of pressure from law enforcement agencies were not supported by specific circumstances and evidence, and therefore did not require mandatory investigation. At the same time, the Supreme Court took into account changes in legislation that decriminalized part of the acts and closed the criminal proceedings in this part, and also changed the punishment for another episode, releasing the person from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal, but amended the court decisions, partially closing the criminal proceedings and changing the type of punishment for certain episodes.
Case No. 560/8683/24 dated 07/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the refusal of budget VAT refund.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal of budget refund for a certain period. The court did not provide specific arguments in this part of the decision, but it can be assumed that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of tax legislation governing the issue of budget VAT refund, or did not take into account certain circumstances that were important for the correct resolution of the case. Possibly, sufficient evidence was provided of the legality of the plaintiff’s claims for VAT refund, which was not properly assessed by the courts of previous instances. Also, it is possible that the tax authority unlawfully refused the refund, citing formal grounds.
The court recognized as illegal and overturned the tax notice-decision in the part of the refusal of budget refund in the amount of UAH 1,496,223.28.
Case No. 990/43/24 dated 07/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the judge’s non-compliance with the position held and the submission of a motion for her dismissal.
The court, partially satisfying the claim, noted that the HQCJU did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the conclusion about the judge’s non-compliance with the position held. The court pointed out that individual violations committed by the judge are not so serious as to call into question her professional competence and integrity. Also, the court took into account the judge’s positive characteristics and her significant work experience. The court emphasized that the decision to dismiss
the judge’s removal must be reasoned and proportionate to the committed violations, and in this case, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) failed to prove that dismissal is a necessary measure. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the independence of the judiciary and preventing political pressure on judges.
The court recognized as unlawful and overturned the decision of the HQCJU regarding the judge’s unsuitability for the position and the submission for her dismissal.
Case No. 910/9652/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) regarding violation of legislation on protection of economic competition.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court, when overturning the decision of the court of first instance and dismissing the claim, did not verify the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the necessity of applying Article 371 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” retroactively based on Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as this could mitigate the plaintiff’s responsibility, considering the duration of the antimonopoly case. The court noted that the appellate court did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of reasonable terms for consideration of the AMCU case and the possibility of closing the case based on new provisions of legislation that came into effect after the start of the case consideration but before the decision was made. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the court’s failure to establish the circumstances of the case, which are crucial for the correct resolution of the dispute, makes it impossible for the Supreme Court to verify the legal application made by the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new hearing to the appellate instance.
Case No. 560/15993/24 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the serviceman for a certain period.
2. The court of cassation instance established that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not examine the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the amount of his monetary allowance for February 2018, which is important for calculating indexation. The courts also did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the mandatory simultaneous compensation of personal income tax upon payment of indexation. The court emphasized the need to establish the amount of the increase in the plaintiff’s income in March 2018, the amount of possible indexation, and compare these indicators to determine the right to indexation-difference. The court emphasized that the defendant’s powers regarding the payment of indexation-difference are not discretionary but are an obligation guaranteed by law. The court also pointed out the erroneousness of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the prematurity of the claims for compensation of personal income tax, as such compensation must be paid simultaneously with indexation. The court also noted
that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments and did not verify the validity of the indexation amounts charged by him.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/9565/24 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid and cancellation of the decision of the Northern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the previous instance courts. The decision does not contain specific arguments that the court of cassation instance was guided by, as only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided. Usually, the court of cassation instance verifies the correct application of the norms of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances based on the arguments of the cassation appeal. The absence of a detailed description of the motives in the provided excerpt does not allow establishing which arguments of the parties and assessments of the previous instance courts were decisive for the Supreme Court. The full text of the court decision is required for a complete analysis.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/8094/24 dated 04/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank of debt for the discharge of wastewater without obtaining the necessary permits.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the bank discharged wastewater without proper permits, violating the established rules. The court emphasized that the fee for wastewater discharge without a permit is not an operational and economic sanction, but a mandatory payment for violation of regulatory requirements. The court also took into account that the bank did not provide evidence of obtaining permits for wastewater discharge, which confirms the fact of violation. The court rejected the bank’s arguments that the application of a fivefold tariff is illegal, since the bank did not refute the fact of wastewater discharge without a permit. The court indicated that the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court have precedence over the conclusions of the panel of judges referred to by the appellant.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision to recover the debt remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/9448/24 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. The text of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments that it was guided by when making the decision. Only the names of the parties, their representatives, the case number, the name of the court of appeal instance that considered the case before, and a list of articles of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine that the court was guided by are given. Therefore, I cannot provide a description of the main a
Arguments of the Court.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Kovalska Industrial and Construction Group” LLC, and to uphold the decision of the Southwestern Appellate Commercial Court dated February 19, 2025, in case No. 910/9448/24.
Case No. 906/145/24 dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by Joint Stock Company “Zhytomyroblenergo” in the court of cassation instance.
The court granted the application of JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo”, guided by Articles 123, 126, 129, 244 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the distribution of court costs. The court took into account that the Company incurred expenses for professional legal assistance in the cassation instance, and these expenses are subject to reimbursement by the Entrepreneur, as the decision was made in favor of the Company. The court also took into account the criteria of reasonableness and justification of legal aid costs, considering the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. According to the principle of distribution of court costs, the party in whose favor the decision is made has the right to reimbursement of expenses incurred by it. The court recognized that the claimed amount of expenses is justified and is subject to recovery from the Entrepreneur.
The court ruled to recover from the individual entrepreneur Dolhovska Viktoriia Anatoliivna in favor of Joint Stock Company “Zhytomyroblenergo” UAH 10,000.00 of legal assistance costs in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 910/1469/20 dated 29/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application for imposing subsidiary liability on the former founders and managers of “Kyiv-Gradobud-BMP 1” LLC in connection with bringing it to bankruptcy.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the liquidator’s application, since the liquidator did not prove the existence of all the necessary elements for imposing subsidiary liability. In particular, sufficient evidence was not provided to indicate intentional actions of former managers and founders aimed at worsening the financial condition of the enterprise and bringing it to bankruptcy. The court noted that the liquidator did not prove a causal connection between the actions of the defendants and the debtor’s insolvency, and also did not provide evidence of their guilt. The court also took into account that the liquidator did not substantiate with proper evidence the existence of grounds for bringing the former managers-founders of the debtor to joint liability. The court emphasized that insolvency itself is not a sufficient basis for imposing subsidiary liability, and it is necessary to prove intentional actions aimed at bringing to bankruptcy.
3. The court dismissed the liquidator’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/6015/20 dated 07/05/
**Case № 921/1077/23 dated 29/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the closing of appellate proceedings based on the complaint of a public organization that was not a party to the case, against the decision of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, reasoning that the appellate court correctly determined that the decision of the court of first instance does not concern the rights and obligations of the public organization that filed the appeal, since the subject of consideration in the main case was contractual obligations between insurance companies and their agents, and not the protection of consumer rights, which the public organization deals with. The court of cassation emphasized that, in order for the appeal of a person who was not a party to the case to be considered, it is necessary to prove that the decision of the court of first instance directly resolves the issue of their rights, interests or obligations, and that such a connection must be obvious and unconditional. The Supreme Court noted that the right to access to justice is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, in particular, regarding the conditions for the admissibility of complaints. The court also took into account that the public organization had already applied to the court with similar claims in another case, which further confirms the absence of a direct connection between the decision in this case and its rights and obligations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court was upheld.
**Case № 922/1836/24 dated 29/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the procurement of works due to non-payment for the performed works.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not properly assess the actions of the parties regarding the execution of the contract, in particular, did not clarify whether the customer complied with the requirements of Articles 525, 526, 853, 882 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which regulate the procedure for acceptance of works and declaration of their defects. The court also noted that the appellate court did not establish the circumstances of the actual performance of the works, their compliance with the design and estimate documentation and the scope declared by the plaintiff. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the signing of acts of acceptance and transfer of performed works is a formal necessity, which does not change the essence of the performed works if their reality is proven by other evidence. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court, without proper justification, equated the local estimate with the design and estimate documentation, which is erroneous. The court of cassation also pointed out the court’s obligation to assess the evidence in terms of its credibility and interrelation, which was not done by the appellate court.
3. The decision of the appellate court was overturned, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
**Case № 914/297/24 dated 29/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the decision of the State Property Fund to refuse to apply preferential rent.
of the rental payment and the obligation to recalculate the rental payment.
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal did not clarify whether the plaintiff, as the winner of the auction, complied with the procedure for obtaining a preferential rental payment in accordance with the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and whether the lessor complied with the provisions of this resolution when deciding on granting the privilege. The court of appeal did not assess all the arguments of the parties to the case, in particular, regarding the legitimate expectations of the plaintiff for the application of a preferential rental payment and the legality of the lessor’s refusal. The court of appeal did not properly assess the evidence, did not establish the actual circumstances of the case fully and comprehensively, which made it impossible to make a legal and justified decision. The court of cassation pointed out the need to clarify the issue of compliance by “Romashka” LLC, as the winner of the electronic auction, with the procedure provided for in paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated May 27, 2022, No. 634, for obtaining the right to a preferential rental payment, as well as compliance by the lessor (RV FDM of Ukraine in Lviv, Zakarpattia and Volyn regions) with the provisions of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine when deciding on granting/refusing to grant a preferential rental payment to the auction winner and the availability of grounds for the lessor to demand from the lessee (auction winner) documents to the lessee’s petition in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated May 27, 2022, No. 634.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 760/9776/25 dated 05/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to send a motion of the defender for temporary access to things and documents from one court to another within different appellate districts.
The court justified its decision by the fact that, according to the current criminal procedural legislation, the issue of sending a motion for temporary access to things and documents from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts is not subject to satisfaction. The judges referred to Articles 32, 33-1, 34, 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the issues of territorial jurisdiction and powers of the court. The panel of judges decided that in this case there are no grounds for changing jurisdiction, since the motion was filed within the competence of the Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv. The court also noted that the ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its pronouncement and is not subject to appeal.
The court ruled to dismiss the submission of the chairman of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to send the materials of the defender’s motion.
Case No. 333/8006/23 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation by recognizing information as unreliable
Regarding the appeal against the dissemination of information on the social network Facebook and on the website, and the obligation to refute it.
3. The court, in dismissing the claim, proceeded from the fact that the disseminated information contains evaluative judgments, and not factual assertions, since the defendant expressed his subjective opinion and assumptions regarding certain events, which are not subject to refutation. The court took into account that the defendant used linguistic turns that indicate the evaluative nature of the statements, as well as the fact that the factual part of the information (regarding the representation of the interests of a third party by the plaintiff) corresponds to reality. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her personal non-property rights or the impossibility of their exercise, as well as the causal relationship between the disseminated information and the infliction of moral damage. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the expressions in the publication are evaluative and do not violate the plaintiff’s rights. The Supreme Court also supported these conclusions, noting that the courts properly assessed the context of the publication and correctly determined its evaluative nature.
4. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 459/2809/22 dated April 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for causing minor bodily injuries to various persons.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it found that the local court, with which the court of appeal agreed, reasonably found PERSON_6 guilty of committing criminal offenses under Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code, based on duly examined evidence, including the testimony of victims, witnesses, expert opinions, and video recordings. The court noted that the testimony of PERSON_6 about self-defense was assessed critically, as it contradicted other evidence. The court of cassation also agreed with the decision of the court of appeal to release PERSON_6 from punishment under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court of cassation emphasized that the amount of compensation for moral damage and legal aid costs was justified, considering the circumstances of the case and the volume of services provided.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal – unchanged.
Case No. 459/2809/22 dated April 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Article 125, Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely intentional minor bodily injury and intentional minor bodily injury that caused a short-term health disorder.
2. The operative part of the resolution does not contain the arguments of the court of cassation. It appears from the text that the full text of the resolution will be avaiannounced later, therefore, it is currently impossible to establish the motives that guided the Supreme Court in upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. Analysis of the arguments will be possible after the full text of the court decision is published.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.
Case No. 761/12374/20 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of decisions on state registration of ownership of a non-residential premise, invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement, and recovery of this property for the benefit of the territorial community of the city of Kyiv.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the non-residential premise was disposed of from communal ownership without a corresponding decision of the Kyiv City Council, and the initial court decision, on the basis of which the ownership right was registered, did not exist at all. The courts reasonably refused to apply the statute of limitations, as the prosecutor and the Kyiv City Council became aware of the violation of the rights of the community only during the investigation of the criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the very fact of entering information into the State Register of Real Property Rights does not indicate the prosecutor’s awareness of the violation of the property rights of the Kyiv City Council. The arguments of the cassation appeal that the statute of limitations began earlier, from the moment of registration of ownership, were rejected, since the registration itself does not indicate the illegality of acquiring the property. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances provided an exhaustive answer to all essential issues in the case, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute their conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 686/14711/21 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the order of the State Geocadastre on the transfer of a land plot to private ownership and its recovery for the benefit of the city council.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not properly assess the criterion of proportionality of interference with the property rights of the acquirer of the property, as required by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, especially regarding the recovery of the land plot. At the same time, the court of first instance also did not properly substantiate the refusal to satisfy the claims for recovery, which makes it impossible to verify the correctness of the application of the norms of law. The court noted that the prosecutor did not provide the original state act on the right of collective ownership of land, which he used to justify his claim, and the copy of the state act provided by him, by virtue of the requirements of part six of Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, could not be taken into account by the appellate court, since the respThe respondent questioned this written evidence. Given that the courts of both instances did not properly examine the collected evidence, as a result of which the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute were not established, the court decisions made by them regarding the claims for the recovery of the land plot cannot be considered lawful and justified.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the claims for the recovery of the land plot and sent the case for a new trial to the court of the first instance.
Case No. 910/9448/24 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) to refuse to involve LLC “Industrial-Construction Group Kovalska” (Company) in the concentration case as a third party.
2. The court of cassation instance, supporting the decision of the appellate court, noted that the AMCU acts within the limits of its discretionary powers when deciding on the involvement of third parties in concentration cases, and the obligation to prove the significant impact of the decision in the case on rights and interests rests with the applicant. The court also took into account that the Company is not a direct consumer or producer of cement, but only manages a group of enterprises, and did not prove that the AMCU’s decision significantly affects its rights more than other cement consumers. In addition, the court noted that the appealed decision of the AMCU to refuse involvement in the concentration case is not an effective means of protection, since the procedure for considering the concentration case has already been completed. The court also indicated that the actions of the court of appeal regarding the involvement of CRH Ukraine B.V comply with the algorithm of actions defined in the resolution of the joint chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Industrial-Construction Group Kovalska” and left the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 698/1101/15-к dated 04/30/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale, committed repeatedly or by prior conspiracy by a group of persons, or by a person who previously committed one of the crimes provided for in Articles 307, 308, 310, 317 of this Code).
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts, without providing detailed arguments in the operative part of the ruling. It can be assumed that the court of cassation instance did not find significant violations of the criminal procedural law or incorrect application of the substantive law that could lead to the cancellation or modification of the appealed court decisions. Also likely
but the court took into account the arguments presented in previous court decisions regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt and the justification of the imposed punishment. The full text of the ruling, which will be announced later, will reveal more detailed reasons for the decision. The convicted person’s defenders participated in the hearing via video conference, which indicates that the right to defense was ensured.
The court decided to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person – without satisfaction.
Case No. 580/2628/24 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice regarding the application of penalties for violation of the requirements for conducting settlement operations.
The court of cassation found that the court of appeal mistakenly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account that the absence of mandatory requisites in the fiscal receipt makes it an invalid settlement document, which entails financial liability. The court noted that the tax authority legitimately used information from the ROAS (Registration of Outgoing Accounting System) data accounting system to verify compliance with the requirements for settlement operations. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal regarding the illegality of conducting an actual audit, as the tax authority did not provide evidence of the existence of legal grounds for its appointment, which is an independent ground for canceling the tax assessment notice. Considering that the cassation appeal did not contain arguments regarding the audit procedure, the Supreme Court did not assess these circumstances, but emphasized their importance.
The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left unchanged the decision to satisfy the claims.
Case No. 133/424/18 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding his conviction under Part 1 of Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional infliction of a blow, beating, or commission of other violent acts that caused physical pain and did not result in bodily injury).
2. This operative part of the ruling does not contain the court’s arguments, as it is stated that the full text will be drawn up later. Accordingly, it is impossible to analyze what arguments the Supreme Court was guided by when leaving unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding PERSON_6 unchanged, and his cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 904/5262/23 dated 29/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the contract agreement as invalid and the recovery from LLC “Limm-Bud” of UAH 352,222.06 of penalty, inflationarylosses and 3% per annum due to the untimely fulfillment of the monetary obligation.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which declared the additional agreement invalid because it contradicted the requirements of the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine regarding the maximum term for the use of the advance payment, and also supported the accrual of penalties and other payments due to the delay in fulfilling obligations. The court noted that force majeure circumstances were not properly proven, and the proper evidence of the use of the advance payment is the acts of completed works (form KB-2v) and certificates of the cost of completed works (form KB-3), which were not in the case file. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the transfer of funds to a non-budgetary account and the approval of payments by the treasury are sufficient proof of the use of the advance payment, since the contract agreement required confirmation of the use of the advance payment by acts of completed works. The court also rejected the motion to postpone the hearing of the case, as the defendant failed to prove that this made it impossible to establish important circumstances for resolving the case.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Limm-Bud” LLC without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal without changes.
Case No. 921/534/23 dated April 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ternopil Region against the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Ternopil Region and the decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal regarding the approval of the rehabilitation plan and the introduction of the rehabilitation procedure for the Subsidiary Enterprise “Ternopil Oblavtodor”.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that the rehabilitation plan meets the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUoBP), and the decision to approve it was made by the creditors’ meeting in compliance with the established procedure. The court noted that the rehabilitation plan contains measures aimed at improving the financial condition of the debtor and satisfying the creditors’ claims, and also provides for the restoration of the debtor’s solvency within the term of the rehabilitation procedure. The SC emphasized that the presence of technical errors does not affect the validity of the rehabilitation plan. The SC also took into account that the introduction of the rehabilitation procedure is more beneficial for the tax authority than liquidation, as it provides for the receipt of funds to the budget from VAT and other taxes. The SC emphasized that the rule on writing off tax debt that arose more than three years before the creditors’ meeting is special and takes precedence over the general rules of the Tax Code.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Ternopil Region without satisfaction, and the decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal and the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Ternopil Region in the appealed part – without changes.
Case No. 466/6969/22 dated April 30, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of theft, incin large amounts, and violation of the rules of administrative supervision.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, overturning the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of the person for thefts committed during certain periods in 2022 and 2023. The court based its decision on the fact that, at the time of the case’s consideration, the law establishing criminal liability for such acts had lost its force. This means that acts previously considered criminal no longer fall under criminal jurisdiction. In this regard, the criminal proceedings in this part were closed based on the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In the other part, concerning other episodes of criminal activity or other articles of charge, the court decisions remained unchanged.
The court ruled: to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, to overturn the judgment and the ruling in the part of the conviction for individual episodes of thefts and to close the criminal proceedings in this part, and to leave the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 380/6818/22 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Davydіvka Village Council on the approval of the detailed territory plan (DTP), which, according to the plaintiff, violates his right to use the land plot.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, pointed out the following:
* It is the duty of the client of urban planning documentation to separately publish the adopted decisions on the development of urban planning documentation, draft urban planning documentation, and a notice of the start of the procedure for considering public proposals.
* Failure to fulfill one of these obligations cannot be considered fulfillment of others.
* The announcement of public hearings should contain complete information about the composition and content of urban planning documentation, graphic materials, and information about planned activities.
* Failure to comply with the public hearing procedure distorts the results that could have been obtained.
* Approval of the DTP without proper public discussion is an absolute ground for canceling the decision on its approval.
* The court also took into account that the plaintiff reasonably claims that the DTP created obstacles in accessing/exiting his plot.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and amended the decision of the court of first instance regarding the reasons for satisfying the claims, upholding the decision to recognize as illegal and cancel the decision of the village council.
Case No. 200/13568/21 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk region to accrue and pay the plaintiff a monthly allowance for work with special working conditions, provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 708, as an employee who worked
d on the contact line.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the salaries of civil servants are regulated by a special law, namely the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service,” which exhaustively defines the components of civil servants’ salaries. Since the allowance provided for by Resolution No. 708 is not provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service,” there are no grounds for its accrual to civil servants. The Court noted that Resolution No. 708 is aimed at additional stimulation of employees of budgetary institutions, establishments, and organizations that work in special conditions on the contact line, but it cannot expand the list of payments established by a special law for civil servants. The Court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the impossibility of applying Resolution No. 708 in cases where remuneration is regulated by special legislation for certain categories of employees.
3. The Court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Donetsk region, to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and to deny the claim of PERSON_1.
Case No. 910/18089/23 dated 22/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of the Central State Archive-Museum of Literature and Art of Ukraine from the leased premises due to the expiration of the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the refusal of eviction, as the courts mistakenly applied the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Culture” and “On Museums and Museum Affairs,” which do not regulate lease relations, but are regulated by the special law “On Lease of State and Communal Property.” The Court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Culture” concerns investment, innovation activities, and privatization in the field of culture, and not lease relations. The Court formulated the conclusion that in the event of termination of the lease agreement for the premises of a cultural institution, such institution is obliged to return the property, since the Law of Ukraine “On Culture” does not apply to these relations. At the same time, considering the importance of preserving cultural heritage and the uniqueness of the archive-museum, the court changed the reasoning part of the decision, stating that the eviction of the museum without providing equivalent premises will lead to the destruction of values, which contradicts Ukraine’s international obligations. The Court emphasized the state’s obligation to ensure proper conditions for the preservation of cultural values.
3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left unchanged the decision to deny the claim for eviction.
Case No. 910/3359/21 dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) by the joint-stock company “Gas Distribution System Operator.”
and “Vinnytsiagaz”.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which refused to satisfy the claim of “Vinnytsiagaz” against the AMCU. The lower courts likely proceeded from the fact that the AMCU acted within its powers when making the decision challenged by “Vinnytsiagaz”. Possibly, the courts agreed with the AMCU’s arguments regarding the existence of violations of competition law by “Vinnytsiagaz” or the validity of the applied sanctions. Also, the courts could have taken into account the evidence provided by the AMCU, which confirms the legality of its decision. It is important that the Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the AMCU’s decision.
The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Vinnytsiagaz” and to leave the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/9566/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “West Card” LLC for the recovery from “AS Resource” LLC of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the cassation appeal.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the application, guided by the following arguments: firstly, the cassation court redistributes court costs only if a new decision is made or the final court decision is changed; secondly, if the case is sent for a new consideration, the distribution of court costs is carried out by the court that makes the final decision; thirdly, “West Card” LLC did not differentiate the amount of expenses in the part of the claims for which the final decision was made and those that were sent for a new consideration; fourthly, the court applied the principle of proportional reimbursement of court costs, determining the amount to be recovered in proportion to the satisfied part of the claims; fifthly, the court took into account that the other party did not submit a petition to reduce the amount of court costs, and also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the freedom of contract when determining the amount of the lawyer’s fee. The court also emphasized that the time spent by the lawyer on the road to the court is an integral part of legal assistance and is subject to compensation.
3. The court partially satisfied the application of “West Card” LLC and ordered the recovery from “AS Resource” LLC in favor of “West Card” LLC of UAH 2,000 of expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 910/16379/23 dated 22/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the petition of Private Entrepreneur Nesterenko K.V. for the recovery from JSC CB “Privatbank” of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the petition, guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made, and the right to professional legal assistance guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine; the court took into account the provisions of Article 126 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the determination of the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, which are subject to distribution between the parties, in particular, the need for proportionality of these expenses.
considering the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, and the time spent by the attorney; the court also took into account the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality of costs, defined by Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the practice of the ECHR regarding the reimbursement of only necessary and reasonable legal costs; the court considered that the defendant’s position was formed back in the appellate instance, and the cassation appeal was partially satisfied, which does not indicate the need for a new analysis of judicial practice by the attorney.
2. The court ordered to recover UAH 20,000 from JSC CB “Privatbank” in favor of Private Entrepreneur Nesterenko K.V. for professional legal assistance expenses, denying the satisfaction of the remaining claims.
**Case №990/306/24 dated 07/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to extend the period of temporary suspension of a judge from administering justice in connection with being brought to criminal responsibility.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HCJ acted within its powers, and its decision contains references to the grounds defined by law and is properly motivated. The court noted that the participation of a member of the HCJ, who was considering disciplinary complaints against the plaintiff, is not an unconditional basis for recusal, especially when the recusal was not requested during the HCJ session. Also, the court emphasized that the HCJ does not have the authority to verify the procedural order of serving a notice of suspicion, and its task is to clarify the validity of the suspicion and the existence of grounds for continuing the suspension, in particular, whether the circumstances that were the basis for the initial suspension continue to exist. The court took into account that the existence of criminal proceedings against a judge may cast doubt on his impartiality and harm the authority of the judiciary. The court also noted that the HCJ, when making the decision, listened to the position of the judge and his representative, which indicates compliance with the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties.
3. The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim to declare illegal and cancel the decision of the High Council of Justice.
**Case №910/5620/24 dated 08/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of clauses of the contract and the amendment of the contract between LLC “Sumyteploenergo” and LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading”.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the arguments of the court, which it used when making the decision. There are only introductory and operative parts of the resolution. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is needed.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Sumyteploenergo” without satisfaction, and to leave the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case №160/28927/24 dated 06/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the order on the cancellation of retail licenses.
regarding the annulment of licenses for retail trade of tobacco products and a motion to secure the claim by suspending the effect of this order.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision to secure the claim, noted that the appellate court incorrectly assessed the circumstances of the case, in particular, failed to take into account that the plaintiff has other types of economic activity besides retail trade in tobacco products, and the annulment of licenses will not lead to a complete cessation of its activity. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the possible negative consequences of the annulment of licenses, such as the termination of contractual relations, non-payment of taxes, or non-payment of wages. The Supreme Court stressed that securing a claim must be justified and based on real evidence, not on assumptions about possible negative consequences. The court of cassation emphasized that courts should take into account the specifics of legal relations and their legislative regulation in order to conclude on the necessity of applying measures to secure the claim.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision to secure the claim and upheld the first instance court’s ruling to deny securing the claim.
Case No. 560/1787/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the customs office’s decision to adjust the customs value of goods and the card of refusal to accept the customs declaration.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that the plaintiff provided sufficient documents confirming the price of the goods and their payment, which allows establishing the customs value according to the main method – based on the contract price; the customs office did not substantiate on the basis of which specific customs declaration the specific customs value was adjusted for each product, did not provide a justification for the numerical value of the customs value of the goods adjusted by the customs authority, and the facts that influenced such adjustment, violating the requirements of Article 55 of the Customs Code of Ukraine; the customs authority’s assertion that the relatedness of the parties to the foreign economic transaction may affect the declared customs value is an assumption not supported by evidence; the package of documents provided by the plaintiff was the same for all goods, but the customs office reached different conclusions regarding the confirmation of the customs value for different parts of the goods. The court also noted that the customs office’s arguments relate to the re-evaluation of evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court recognized them as proportionate to the complexity of the case and the amount of work performed.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the customs office’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision without changes.
Case No. 9901/181/21 dated 16/04/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Edjein Macro” LLC against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on enacting the decision of the National Security and Defense Council regarding the application of personal sanctions to the company.
The court justified its decision by the fact that the President acted within the limits
of constitutional powers, issuing a decree based on the NSDC decision, which was adopted at the proposal of the SSU in order to protect national interests. The court noted that the existence of real or potential threats to national security is an evaluative concept, and the President has discretion in assessing such threats. Also, the court took into account the evidence provided by the SSU, which confirms the existence of grounds for the application of sanctions, although some of the information was restricted. The court emphasized that sanctions are a proportionate interference with the right to property, as they have a legitimate aim and do not deprive the right to property, but only temporarily restrict its implementation. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the lawfulness of applying sanctions to legal entities associated with Golden Derrick LLC was confirmed.
The court dismissed the claim of Edgeyn Macro LLC in full.
Case No. 480/509/24 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Regional Service Center regarding the failure to return the original power of attorney after the re-registration of the vehicle.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly closed the appellate proceedings, considering that the Regional Service Center does not have administrative procedural capacity due to the lack of legal entity status. The Supreme Court emphasized that according to the CAS of Ukraine, a subject of power can be a defendant in an administrative case, even if it is not a legal entity. In this case, the Regional Service Center, although it is a structural subdivision, is authorized to issue administrative acts and make decisions, which makes it a subject of power. The court also noted that the Regional Service Center actually refused the plaintiff to return the power of attorney, which became the basis for applying to the court. Taking these circumstances into account, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law by closing the proceedings in the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/12556/20 dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract and the recovery of funds under the original claim of Novitnie Obladnannia LLC against the Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting, and the obligation to fulfill the terms of the contract under the counterclaim of the Council against Novitnie Obladnannia LLC.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the additional ruling of the appellate court unchanged, supporting the decision of the appellate court. The decision does not provide detailed arguments that the court of cassation was guided by, however, dismissing the cassation appeal means that the court agreed with the conclusions of the court of appeal. The court of cassation probably did not find
of violations of substantive or procedural law that could affect the legality and validity of the appellate court’s decision. The lack of a detailed description of the motives in the abridged ruling makes a complete analysis of the court’s reasoning impossible.
The Court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, and to leave the additional постанову [ruling] of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal of March 6, 2025, in case No. 910/12556/20, unchanged.
Case No. 910/10005/24 dated May 8, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of LLC “Trans-Garant” to oblige LLC “Acris Agro Group” to provide copies of certain agreements and primary documents thereto.
2. The courts of previous instances closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the dispute is not subject to resolution in the order of commercial procedure, since, in their opinion, the claim is aimed at protecting the right of a lawyer to receive information upon a lawyer’s request, and not at protecting the economic interests of the plaintiff. The courts did not take into account that the dispute arose between two legal entities in connection with their economic relations, and the lawyer’s request was submitted in the interests of the client to obtain documents related to these relations. The Supreme Court emphasized that in order to determine the jurisdiction of the dispute, it is important to take into account the subject composition, the subject of the dispute, and the nature of the disputed legal relations. The Supreme Court also noted that there are examples in court practice when courts considered claims to oblige the provision of information that was not provided upon a lawyer’s request.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 440/15075/23 dated May 6, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Poltava Customs regarding the adjustment of the customs value of two imported trailers and the refusal of their customs clearance.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that the declarant has the right to choose a method for determining the customs value, including a reserve method, but is obliged to comply with the established sequence of applying the methods. The court noted that the expert’s opinion on the value of the goods is only an additional source of information, and not the main document confirming the customs value. Also, the court indicated that when applying the reserve method, the customs value must be based on the values previously recognized by customs, and the use of domestic market prices of the exporting country is inadmissible. The court emphasized that the declarant did not substantiate the impossibility of applying the previous methods of determining the customs value, and the documents provided by him contained discrepancies with the price indicated in the contract. Taking this into account, the court recognized the legitimacy of the customs’ decision to adjust the customs value based on previously recognized customs values.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal, and to leave the постанову [ruling] of the appellate court unchanged.
affirming the legality of the customs’ decision to adjust the customs value.
Case No. 907/1053/23 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal of the order on the transfer for lease of land plots, the recognition as invalid of the lease agreement, the cancellation of the state registration of the right of lease, and the obligation to return the land plots.
2. The court refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, because the prosecutor requested to recognize as invalid the lease agreement of unclaimed land plots concluded by the district state administration with Ekoklub Silverlend LLC, as well as to cancel the state registration of the lease right and to oblige the return of these plots. The court indicated that undistributed land plots are not lands of state or communal ownership, but are at the disposal of the administration until the owners receive documents for the land. Also, the court noted that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, since the cancellation of the order on the transfer for lease will not restore the violated right. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the task of commercial court proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the chosen method of protection must be proper and guarantee the full restoration of the violated right. The Supreme Court supported the position of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the prosecutor did not prove the violation of the rights and interests of the village council, and the satisfaction of the claims will not restore its rights.
3. The court of cassation instance left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 280/5282/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the period of delay in the execution of the court decision on reinstatement to the position.
2. The court of cassation instance, canceling the decision of the appellate court, emphasized the binding nature of court decisions that are subject to immediate execution, in particular, decisions on reinstatement to the position. The court indicated that failure to execute a court decision on reinstatement does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to payment of average earnings for the period of delay. The court also emphasized that the cancellation of the decision on reinstatement does not release the employer from the obligation to pay the employee for forced absence from work in case of delay in the execution of the decision. The court noted that the institution of immediate execution of court decisions is designed to ensure quick and real protection of the employee’s rights, and emphasized that the employer is responsible for the timely execution of the court decision, regardless of the actions of the employee. The court also noted that the appellate court did not have the right to deviate from the legal position of the Supreme Court, since this is the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court.
3. The court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the постанову of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance on satisfying the claim.
<a href=”https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127172100
