Case №520/619/23 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the customs decision on the assessment of customs payments and the claim for the return of overpaid funds in connection with the customs clearance of the car.
2. The court of cassation established that the key issue is determining the date to be used as a reference when applying the benefits for customs payments introduced by Law № 2142-IX, namely, whether such date is the date of submission of the preliminary customs declaration, or the date of submission of the supplementary customs declaration. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts must actively ascertain all the circumstances of the case, and not be limited only to the arguments of the parties, especially under the principle of official ascertainment of circumstances in administrative proceedings. The court also noted that the appellate court did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding objective obstacles to the customs clearance of the car before July 1, 2022, and his volunteer activities for which the car was imported. Considering that the appellate court did not refute the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the impossibility of customs clearance before July 1, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are relevant for the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case №560/6856/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of “Company “Galeon” LLC against tax assessment notices issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Khmelnytskyi Oblast, regarding the reduction of the VAT tax credit and the increase of VAT tax liabilities and penalties.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noting that “Company “Galeon” LLC timely initiated the payment of income tax, and the delay in crediting funds to the budget is not its fault. Regarding the VAT tax credit, the court indicated that the tax invoices contained all the necessary details and allowed for the identification of car rental transactions. Also, the court noted that in the case of a financial leasing agreement, tax obligations arise for the lessor (bank), and not for “Company “Galeon” LLC, which only transferred its rights and obligations under the agreement to another person. The court emphasized that the tax credit is formed on the basis of real business transactions, confirmed by proper documents, and in this case such documents were provided by the plaintiff.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Khmelnytskyi Oblast, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №522/21764/18 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding the tram driver, accused of
violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of a pedestrian.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not fully verify the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, in particular regarding the technical condition of the tram tracks and the causal link between the driver’s actions and the consequences. The appellate court did not properly assess the defense’s arguments that the emergency condition of the tracks could have been the main reason for the tram’s derailment, and also did not verify whether the driver was informed of the job description provisions. In addition, the appellate court refused to re-examine the evidence requested by the defense, despite the existence of contradictions between the evidence. As a result, the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court had committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, which prevented the adoption of a lawful and justified decision.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 181/301/21 dated 05/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_10 under Part 4 of Article 187, Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and PERSON_11 under Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the defense counsels and the prosecutor, overturning the ruling of the appellate court and ordering a new trial in the appellate instance. The judges of the court of cassation concluded that the appellate court had violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decision. In particular, the appellate court did not properly assess the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of certain evidence, did not fully and comprehensively verify the circumstances of the case, and did not take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the Supreme Court drew attention to the need to impose a preventive measure in the form of detention on PERSON_11 during the new appellate review.
The court ruled: to partially grant the cassation appeals of the defense counsels and the prosecutor, to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the appellate court, and to impose on PERSON_11 a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Case No. 727/290/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court regarding the verdict of PERSON_6, convicted under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal trafficking of psychotropic substances).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, stating that the appellate court did not properly take into account the gravity of the crime and the public danger of PERSON_6’s actions, in particular, the acquisition and possession for the purpose of selling a large quantity of a particularly dangerous psychotropic substance. The court noted that the appellate court, although itagreed to the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a sentence below the minimum limit) due to mitigating circumstances, did not sufficiently assess the gravity of the crime. Furthermore, the appellate court, having excluded the qualifying element of “committing a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy,” left the judgment of the local court unchanged, which contradicts Article 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the need to ensure the possibility of a new trial, the Supreme Court chose a preventive measure for PERSON_6 in the form of detention.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure for PERSON_6 in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 522/21764/18 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for violating traffic rules, which caused the consequences provided for in Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, established certain violations committed by the appellate court during the review of the case. Although the operative part does not specify specific arguments, it can be assumed that the court of cassation may have found a discrepancy between the conclusions of the appellate court and the actual circumstances of the case, incompleteness of the examination of evidence, or incorrect application of substantive or procedural law. It is possible that the defendant’s rights to defense were violated, or that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal. Considering that the full text of the decision will be announced later, detailed justifications remain unknown. However, the overturning of the appellate court’s ruling indicates the presence of significant shortcomings that require a retrial by the appellate court.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, overturn the ruling of the appellate court, and order a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 757/10974/25-к dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments of the court. The text only indicates that the defense counsel requested the transfer of the case to another court within different appellate districts, but the Supreme Court denied this motion. The reasons for the denial are not specified, as only the operative part has been announced. To understand the logic of the court, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the ruling.
The court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion.
Case No. 334/6125/18 dated 06/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling to leave unchanged the judgment regarding
of a person accused of attempted murder.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, agreeing with the previous decision. The operative part of the ruling does not provide specific arguments relied upon by the court of cassation, but it states that the prosecutor’s cassation appeal was dismissed. The full text of the decision, with a detailed justification of the court’s position, will be announced later. The absence of detailed reasoning in the operative part makes it impossible to provide a deeper analysis of the motives that guided the Supreme Court in making its decision.
The court ruled: The ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Court of Appeal dated May 16, 2024, regarding PERSON_7, shall remain unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal shall be dismissed.
Case No. 335/12523/23 dated 05/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized dissemination of information on the direction, movement of weapons, armaments, and ammunition under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the defender’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instance courts. The court reversed the application of special confiscation, namely the confiscation of the car, its technical passport, keys, and alarm key fob. In substantiating the decision, the court likely proceeded from the fact that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the property subject to special confiscation was acquired as a result of the commission of a crime or was an instrument or means of its commission. The court decided to return these material evidences to the owner, i.e., the convicted person. In the remaining part, the judgment and ruling were left unchanged, which may indicate the court’s agreement with the classification of actions and the measure of punishment.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defender’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instance courts regarding the special confiscation of property and returning it to the owner.
Case No. 727/3170/18 dated 04/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the acquittal of PERSON_7 on charges of receiving undue advantage (Part 3 of Article 3683 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court formally reviewed the prosecutor’s appeal, failing to properly analyze the arguments regarding the unsubstantiated recognition by the court of first instance of the prosecution’s evidence as inadmissible, in particular, the protocol on the results of the control over the commission of a crime in the form of simulating the circumstances of the crime. The appellate court did not take into account that the prosecutor’s order dated March 6, 2017, although containing an inaccurate name of the covert investigative (search) action, authorized the conduct of simulating the circumstances of the crime, which corresponded to the content of the protocol. Also, the appellate court did not provide its own assessment of the identification protocols, the revthat the appellate court did not properly refute the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, limiting itself to referring to the conclusion of the internal investigation regarding the loss of material evidence, as well as the record of the seizure and transfer of funds, and the protocol on the results of the crime control. Since the appellate court did not properly refute the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal, this is considered a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
4. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 522/15810/22 dated May 7, 2025
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 a person accused of illegal acquisition and storage of narcotic drugs without the purpose of distribution (Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
This operative part of the resolution does not contain the court’s arguments, but only states that the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court were upheld. To understand the court’s arguments, one must wait for the full text of the resolution.
The court ruled: To uphold the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and to dismiss the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 461/2567/23 dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “Ukrzaliznytsia” in favor of the plaintiff of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, compensation for the loss of part of income, average earnings for the delay in settlement, and compensation for moral damage related to the illegal change of essential working conditions.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals of both parties, noted that the provisions of Article 235 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which provide for the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, have an exhaustive list of cases and do not include payments of the difference in earnings when changing essential working conditions, in particular, when establishing part-time work. The court emphasized that since the plaintiff was not dismissed, but only the working conditions were changed, Article 235 of the Labor Code cannot be applied. At the same time, the court agreed with the appellate instance regarding the existence of grounds for compensation for moral damage, since violations of the plaintiff’s labor rights were established, in particular, illegal disciplinary action and illegal change of essential working conditions. Regarding court costs, the Supreme Court redistributed them, taking into account the partial satisfaction of the claims.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work, average earnings for the delay in settlement, compensation for the loss of part of earnings, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged in the part concerning the claims for compensation for moral damage.
Case No. 727/290/24 dated May 6, 2025
a>
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, who is accused of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues).
2. 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. In making this decision, the Supreme Court apparently found certain violations of procedural law committed by the appellate court during the trial, which could have affected the legality and validity of its decision. Although the operative part of the ruling does not specify the specific reasons for the cancellation, the appointment of a new trial in the appellate court indicates that the previous court decision needs to be reviewed and corrected. In addition, the court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal, choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 334/6125/18 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which amended the judgment of the court of first instance and released the convicted person from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The cassation court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, agreeing that the appellate court reasonably applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on release from serving a sentence with probation. The court took into account that the convicted person had no prior convictions, was positively characterized, admitted guilt, repented, compensated for the damage caused, and the victims did not insist on a severe punishment. The cassation court also noted that the appellate court took into account the behavior of the convicted person after the commission of the crime, in particular that he did not commit new offenses for a long time. The cassation court concluded that the imposed punishment is necessary and sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 733/201/22 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of additional agreements to land lease agreements and their return, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the city council.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because it believes that the plaintiff appealed to the improper defendant, namely to an individual (PERSON_1), while the proper defendant is the farming enterprise “Stupakivka-Agro”, which actually uses the disputed land plots;
the court took into account that the farm enterprise was established by the defendant for conducting agricultural activities on these lands, and it is the land user from the moment of state registration; the court also noted that the plaintiff was informed about the consequences of appealing to an improper defendant, but the plaintiff did not exercise the right to replace the defendant; the appellate court agreed with this conclusion, emphasizing that the farm enterprise should be liable for obligations related to land use.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 991/9618/24 dated 05/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the refusal to review, based on newly discovered circumstances, the decision to apply sanctions on the grounds of the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions.”
2. The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the appeal of the defendant’s representative. The court probably did not find sufficient grounds for reviewing the previous decision based on newly discovered circumstances. Possibly, the defendant’s representative did not provide convincing evidence of circumstances that were not and could not have been known to the court at the time of the previous decision, and which are of significant importance to the case. Also, the court could have taken into account that the review of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances is an exceptional procedure that is applied only in cases where there are reasonable doubts about the legality and validity of the previous decision. In rejecting the appeal, the court emphasized that the ruling of the court of first instance is legal and well-founded.
3. The appeal of the defendant’s representative was dismissed, and the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/1891/24 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of the Limited Liability Company “Ukrbudinzhiniring.”
2. The decision does not provide any arguments of the court, so I cannot provide information about them.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 372/1335/22 dated 05/06/2025
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 a person for intentional grievous bodily harm dangerous to life at the time of infliction (Article 121, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case, noted that the conclusions of the court of first instance about the person’s guilt are based on directly examined evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim and the witness, data from the protocols of the inspection of the scene and investigative experiments, in
based on forensic medical and molecular genetic examinations. The appellate court, in reviewing the case, reasonably upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the proof of guilt, amending it only in the part of excluding the qualifying element erroneously indicated by the local court. The Supreme Court did not establish circumstances that would give grounds to believe that the victim attempted to inflict bodily harm on the accused, which could have forced the latter to self-defense. The Supreme Court also did not find any violations in the collection, examination, and evaluation of evidence that would cast doubt on the validity of the courts’ conclusions regarding the proof of the person’s guilt.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, excluded the reference to aggravating circumstances from the court decisions, and mitigated the imposed sentence to 6 years of imprisonment, leaving the remaining court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 552/4374/22 dated 04/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement concluded between the Kharkiv City Council and individuals as invalid due to violations of the procedure for transferring land for lease.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which declared the lease agreement invalid, since the land plot was granted for lease without land auctions for the construction of a dormitory, and not for the maintenance of existing real estate objects, which contradicts the requirements of the Land Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the exception to the rule on the mandatory nature of land auctions applies only in cases where land is provided for the maintenance of existing buildings, and not for new construction. The court also took into account that at the time of the defendants’ acquisition of real estate, the land plot was not formed, and its formation took place later on the initiative of the defendants for the construction of a new object. The arguments of the Kharkiv City Council regarding the absence of legislative restrictions on the area of the land plot were rejected, since this issue is considered only in the context of servicing existing structures, and not new construction. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor rightfully appealed to the court, since the contested decision of the Kharkiv City Council violates the interests of the state.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv City Council and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 991/3418/25 dated 05/09/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_4 in aiding and abetting the seizure of property of the State Enterprise “DH “Elite” and entering deliberately false information into official documents.
2. The court approved the plea agreement, considering that it meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, contains all the necessary elements, the indictment is clearly formulated, and the legal classification of the acts is correct. The court also took into account that underthe weight that PERSON_4 unconditionally admitted his guilt, cooperated with the investigation, exposing other individuals, and partially compensated for the damages. An important factor was that the injured party, SE “DG “Elite”, provided written consent to the conclusion of the agreement. The court also took into account that the agreement meets the interests of society, as it ensures the speedy completion of the proceedings, resource savings, and contributes to bringing other accomplices to justice. The terms of the agreement do not violate the rights, freedoms or interests of the parties or other persons, and its conclusion was voluntary.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and rendered a verdict finding PERSON_4 guilty of committing the crimes under Part 5 of Art. 27, Part 4 of Art. 191, Part 5 of Art. 27, Part 5 of Art. 191 and Part 1 of Art. 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and imposed the punishment agreed upon by the parties, releasing him from serving the main sentence with probation.
Case No. 260/8605/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax assessment notice by which “POTESTAS” LLC had the amount of VAT budget refund reduced.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, stating that the right to a tax credit arises in the event of transactions for the purchase or manufacture of goods. In this case, although “POTESTAS” LLC received tax invoices upon making a prepayment, a different product was actually delivered. To reflect the real transaction, it was necessary to make changes to the tax invoices through an adjustment calculation. Since this was not done, “POTESTAS” LLC is not entitled to a VAT budget refund for these transactions. The court also noted that filing a complaint against a counterparty is a right, not an obligation, of the taxpayer and does not affect the legality of the formation of the tax credit. In addition, the court rejected the arguments about violations of procedural law regarding the consideration of the case without the involvement of the supplier, since the dispute concerns the actions of “POTESTAS” LLC itself.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of “POTESTAS” LLC unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court – unchanged.
Case No. 420/22108/21 dated 08/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by the Southern Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers regarding “TIS-Mindobryva” LLC.
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, leaving the tax assessment notices unchanged. In substantiating its position, the court likely took into account the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the unsubstantiated additional tax liabilities. Also, the court could have taken into account possible violations by the tax authority during the inspection or issuance of the appealed decisions. An important aspect could have been the correct application of tax legislation by the courts of first
