[Case No. 354/476/23 of May 21, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127604823)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the division of a residential building and the establishment of a procedure for the use of a land plot between two co-owners.
2. The court granted the claim, based on the fact that the parties are co-owners of the building, which can be divided according to the expert’s opinion. The court chose the division option that provides for the minimum deviation from the ideal shares of the parties and established the procedure for the use of the land plot in accordance with this option. The court took into account that, upon division, each co-owner is allocated an isolated part of the building with a separate entrance, which corresponds to the size of their shares. The court also noted that the determining factor for the division is the size of the co-owners’ shares and the technical feasibility of the division, and not the established procedure for using the building. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the chosen division option best meets the interests of both co-owners.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, recognizing them as legal and well-founded.
[Case No. 204/13573/23 of May 22, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127604829)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the termination of the right of ownership and the cancellation of the state registration of the right of ownership of PERSON_1 to a residential building, since, according to the Dnipro City Council, this building is actually absent on the land plot belonging to communal property.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the Dnipro City Council did not provide sufficient evidence of the destruction of the property, and the fact of registration of the right of ownership to the building does not violate the rights of the territorial community to the land. The court pointed out that a necessary condition for the termination of the right of ownership on the basis of the destruction of property is the established fact of such destruction, confirmed by proper evidence, which was not done in this case. The court also took into account previous court decisions, which established that the construction of the building was carried out in compliance with the law, and the city council was notified about this. The court noted that depriving a person of the right of ownership in a compulsory manner would contradict the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also emphasized that with the acquisition of the right of ownership to real estate, a person also acquires the rights to the land, and the absence of a formalized lease agreement does not deprive the owner of the right to use the land plot under the real estate object.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
[Case No. 520/19173/18 of May 21, 2025](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127604819)
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and the cancellation of the decision of the state registrar on the state registration of the right of ownership to the apartment for the bank, as well as the restoration
regarding the registration of ownership of this apartment to the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the bank had not provided proper evidence of notification to the mortgagor of the breach of obligations under the loan agreement and of the consequences of such breach, which is a mandatory condition for foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage out of court. The court also took into account that at the time of the registration actions, the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Recovery of Property of Citizens of Ukraine Provided as Security for Loans in Foreign Currency” was in effect, which prohibits the forced recovery of immovable residential property that is the subject of a mortgage for consumer loans in foreign currency, if this property is the permanent residence of the borrower. The court of cassation noted that foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage by acquiring ownership of the subject of the mortgage on the basis of an agreement on satisfaction of the mortgagee’s claims or a corresponding reservation in the mortgage agreement, which is equated to such an agreement, is a forced action of the mortgagee directed to the mortgagor in order to satisfy its claims, and falls under the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Recovery of Property of Citizens of Ukraine Provided as Security for Loans in Foreign Currency.” At the same time, the court of cassation indicated that the state registrar is an improper defendant in such a case, since the dispute arose between the mortgagor and the mortgagee.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part satisfying the claims against the bank, but overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part satisfying the claims against the state registrar and dismissed the claim in this part.
Case No. 183/2733/13-ц dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and the imposition of seizure of the debtor’s property.
2. The court of cassation partially satisfied the debtor’s cassation appeal, pointing out that the court of appeal violated the norms of procedural law by going beyond the limits of the appellate appeal, since the private enforcement officer appealed only part of the decision of the court of first instance, namely the legality of the seizure of property, while the court of appeal reviewed the decision of the court of first instance in full, including those claims that were not the subject of the appellate appeal. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal in the part regarding the legality of the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the imposition of seizure of the debtor’s property, since the debtor did not provide evidence of the availability of other property sufficient to repay the debt. The court of cassation noted that the court of appeal had no right to make a decision on claims that were not appealed in the appellate appeal.
3. The Supreme Court partially
satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling in the part of the claims that were not the subject of appellate review, and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 346/6196/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the first instance court’s ruling on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the apartment owned by the defendant, in a case regarding the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The appellate court closed the appellate proceedings because it decided that the first instance court’s ruling on securing the claim did not concern the rights, freedoms, and interests of Develope Finance LLC, which filed the appeal, since Develope Finance LLC is not a party to the case, and the imposition of an arrest on the debtor’s property does not deprive the creditor of the right to satisfy its claims in the future and does not cancel the rules of priority provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage.” The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion, noting that the measures taken to secure the claim are aimed exclusively at restricting the subjective rights of the defendant as the owner of the immovable property to take actions with its possible alienation, while the essence of the mortgage, as a type of security, is not changed or restricted by such measures, and does not restrict the rights of the mortgagee. The Supreme Court also took into account that the appellate court’s ruling, which Develope Finance LLC referred to as the basis for the violation of its rights, was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court closed the proceedings on the appeal of Develope Finance LLC by a ruling, and not by a decision, as provided for by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, but this did not affect the correct resolution of the procedural issue.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Develope Finance LLC, and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 404/1436/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of shares in the right of joint common ownership of an apartment, the termination of the right of joint common ownership, and the determination of the procedure for using the apartment between the former spouses and their son, who obtained ownership of the apartment through privatization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which recognized each of the co-owners (the plaintiff and the defendants) as having the right of ownership to a 1/3 share of the apartment, terminating the right of joint common ownership, since this allows transforming joint common ownership into joint shared ownership, which is a proper and effective method of protection in this case. The court took into account that the division of the apartment in kind is impossible from a technical point of view, and the determination of shares allows each co-owner to dispose of their share at their own discretion. The court also agreed with the closing of proceedings in the part regarregarding the procedure for the use of the apartment, since there is a court decision that has entered into legal force, between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds. The court of cassation emphasized that the method of protection must be effective and lead to the real restoration of the violated right, and the determination of shares in this case is justified and warranted.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 760/23723/17 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for material damage caused to the car owner as a result of a traffic accident that occurred due to the unsatisfactory condition of the road surface.
2. The court of appeal refused to open appellate proceedings, since the appeal was filed after the expiration of one year from the date of drawing up the full text of the court decision, which is the basis for refusal in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation agreed with this decision, noting that the representative of the defendant was present at the announcement of the decision of the court of first instance and had the opportunity to find out about the status of the case. Also, the court of cassation noted that the defendant did not provide evidence of the existence of force majeure circumstances that would have prevented him from filing an appeal in a timely manner. The court of cassation emphasized that a party involved in legal proceedings is obliged to inquire about the progress of the case at reasonable intervals and to exercise its procedural rights in good faith. The court of cassation noted that the absence in the court decision of an indication of the date of drawing up its full text, provided that the party to the case who is filing an appeal knew about the consideration of the case, is not an obstacle for this person to obtain information about the status of the court proceedings known to him within a reasonable time and does not indicate the existence of cases provided for in the second part of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 263/18104/18 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for compensation for moral damage caused by the death of the plaintiffs’ husband and father in the ATO zone.
2. The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and denying the claim, was guided by the fact that at the time of the plaintiffs’ husband’s death, the territory was temporarily occupied, and the state of Ukraine did not control it sufficiently to prevent the tragedy; the occupying state, i.e. the Russian Federation, is responsible for respecting human rights in the occupied territories; the plaintiffs did not prove that Ukraine knew about the threat of shelling and did not take measures to prevent it, i.e. did not violate the positive obligation to protect the right to life; and, finally, the death of the plaintiffs’ husband
and the state’s fulfillment of a positive obligation are not causally related. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that in order to hold the state liable, it is necessary to prove that it could have taken measures to eliminate the risk to life, but did not do so. The court also took into account that Ukraine has created a mechanism for determining damages from the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, which may be the basis for a separate claim.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 910/7799/24 dated May 27, 2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the invalidation of the decision of the Northern Interregional Territorial Department of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The court decision does not provide any arguments. From the text of the ruling, it is only known that the Kyiv City State Administration filed a lawsuit against the Department of the AMCU, and the Kombinat acted as a third party on the plaintiff’s side. The courts of first and appellate instances satisfied the claim of the Kyiv City State Administration. The Department of the AMCU filed a cassation appeal, which the Supreme Court dismissed. Thus, the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged. Since the text does not contain the reasons for the decisions of the previous instances, it is impossible to establish what arguments they were guided by.
The court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Department of the AMCU, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 912/1898/23 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of local self-government bodies regarding the transfer of the building of the art school from the joint ownership of the territorial communities of the district to the communal ownership of the city council and the termination of the real right to this building.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of the village council. The court proceeded from the fact that the district council lawfully transferred the art school building to the communal ownership of the city council, since this building is located on the territory of the city community and meets exclusively its needs. The court emphasized that the consent of other territorial communities to such transfer is not required if the object meets the needs of only one community. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the art school meets the needs of their community as well. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 227/2346/23 dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Shakhiv Village Council.
regarding the transfer of ownership of a land plot to PERSON_1 for personal farming.
3. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protection, since the recognition of the rural council’s decision as illegal would not lead to the automatic return of the land plot to state ownership. The courts noted that an effective method of protection in this case is a vindication claim, that is, the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also took into account that the owner can claim property from the last acquirer, regardless of the number of previous resales. The court emphasized that the demand for the protection of a civil right or interest must ensure its restoration, and if such restoration is impossible, guarantee the person receives appropriate compensation. The court of cassation also noted that the ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 753/12715/23 dated 05/21/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of marital property, namely an apartment and land plots acquired during the marriage.
2. The court granted the initial claim, recognizing the apartment as jointly owned property and dividing it between the former spouses, as it was purchased with joint funds during the marriage, and the defendant did not refute the presumption of joint property. The counterclaim was dismissed because the land plots were acquired by the husband as a result of gratuitous privatization, which makes them his personal private property and not subject to division. The court also took into account that the vehicle was purchased by the husband during his cohabitation with another woman, not with his ex-wife, therefore it is not joint property of the spouses. The court of appeal agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that cohabitation with children is not a basis for increasing the share in the property, and that the presence or absence of income of one of the spouses does not affect the size of the share in the division of property. The Supreme Court supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that there was no evidence that the land plots were acquired not in the order of gratuitous transfer, but on other grounds, and that the paper text of the court decision of the court of appeal was signed by the judges, which makes the formal shortcomings of the electronic copy insignificant.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 14/5026/1020/2011(925/720/24) dated 05/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the results of the auction for the sale of the bankrupt’s property as invalid.
2. The court of cassation…
The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court did not take into account the need to establish the fact of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement based on the results of the auction and the transfer of ownership of the property, which is important for determining an effective way to protect the violated rights. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not prove that the violation of the deadline for announcing the auction prevented the sale of the property at the highest price, and also did not take into account that the initial price at the auction is only a starting price and is not decisive for the final sale price. In addition, the court of cassation pointed to the plaintiff’s incorrect determination of the circle of defendants, since the organizer of the auction was not included among them. The court of cassation also noted that the conclusion of the appellate court was based on the absence of evidence, and not on the plaintiff’s proof of the circumstances, which contradicts the principle of competitiveness.
3. The court granted the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 620/14485/21 dated May 26, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Chernihiv region regarding “Bakhmachgazbudservice” LLC.
2. The decision does not contain the court’s arguments.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “VK “Blagobud” LLC, which was joined by “Kantarell Ukraine” LLC, and left the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 140/9568/24 dated May 26, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the housing commission and the order of the commander of the military unit regarding the removal of the plaintiff from the register of persons in need of improved housing conditions.
The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the return of the plaintiff’s statement of claim due to the expiration of the term for appealing to the court, established by Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, noting that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing this term. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had to prove that he could not have known about the violation of his right, and that the realization of the right to appeal to the court depends exclusively on the plaintiff himself. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s appeal to the court with a civil claim, which was later returned, is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for appealing to the administrative court, since at the time of filing the civil claim, there was already a clear judicial practice regarding the jurisdiction of such disputes. The court indicated that the plaintiff did not indicate any circumstances that would objectively make it impossible or difficult to appeal to the court within the established term.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 910/8025/24 dated 05/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the National Health Service of Ukraine (NHSU) in favor of the Communal Non-Profit Enterprise “Kyiv City Clinical Hospital No. 1” (CNP) of UAH 13,182,289.15 of debt for medical services provided in December 2023 under the medical guarantee program.
2. The court granted the CNP’s claim, as it established that the hospital provided medical services to patients in an amount that exceeded the data reflected in the electronic report generated by the NHSU, and this data was entered into the Electronic Healthcare System (EHS). The court emphasized that medical services entered into the EHS are subject to payment, and the NHSU, as the authorized body, did not properly generate a report for December 2023, despite the hospital’s requests. Also, the court noted that the absence of objections from the NHSU regarding the volume of actually provided medical services confirms the legitimacy of the CNP’s claims. The court took into account the constitutional guarantees of citizens’ right to medical care and the priority of health care, as well as the fact that the lack of budget funds does not release the NHSU from the obligation to pay for actually provided services. The court also noted that the agreements on amendments to the main agreement did not provide for the hospital’s refusal to pay for services already provided.
3. The court decided to recover from the National Health Service of Ukraine in favor of the Communal Non-Profit
of the commercial enterprise “Kyiv City Clinical Hospital No. 1” in the amount of UAH 13,182,289.15.
Case No. 636/6354/23 dated 05/21/2025
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 evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defender, noting that the courts of previous instances did not duly take into account the circumstances mitigating the punishment and groundlessly took into account the circumstance aggravating the punishment, namely the commission of the crime using the conditions of martial law, since no evidence was provided that the crime was committed using the conditions of martial law. The Court indicated that sincere repentance must be confirmed not only by words but also by actions aimed at correcting the consequences of the crime, and active assistance in solving the crime must be proactive and voluntary. The SC emphasized that evasion of the protection of the Homeland under martial law is a socially dangerous act, but the courts must substantiate the existence of aggravating circumstances. Also, the SC emphasized the importance of an adequate response from the state to criminal offenses in the field of mobilization to ensure the country’s defense capability.
3. The Supreme Court amended the court decisions, excluding references to the circumstance aggravating the punishment and mitigated the imposed punishment to 3 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 320/4042/22 dated 05/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by SMILE CONSTRUCTION LLC against the resolutions of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Boryspil City Council regarding the imposition of fines and orders to eliminate violations in the field of urban planning.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not properly assess the arguments of SMILE CONSTRUCTION LLC regarding the legality of the commencement of preparatory works after submitting a notification through the “Diia” system, compliance with the requirements of urban planning conditions regarding the height of the object, fulfillment of technical conditions for connection to power grids, illegality of simultaneous issuance of orders to eliminate violations and suspend work, as well as regarding the inspection of issues that were not the basis for its appointment. The Court also did not take into account the defendant’s arguments about the existence of an expert assessment confirming that the object belongs to the consequence class not lower than CC2. Considering that the court of appeal did not assess the essential arguments of the appellants, the court’s decision does not meet the requirements of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine regarding the validity of the court decision. The court of cassation emphasized the active role of the court in establishing all the circumstances of the case and the need to assess all the arguments of the parties.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 922/1675/24 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of an individual against a limited liability company in bankruptcy proceedings.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which recognized the monetary claims of an individual against the bankrupt as justified, based on the fact that a preliminary contract for the sale of an apartment was concluded between the parties, under which the individual made a security payment, which is actually an advance payment, since the main contract was never concluded through the fault of the company. The court noted that since the obligation was expressed in US dollar equivalent, the amount to be returned must be recalculated at the exchange rate at the time of application to the court. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the individual did not demand the conclusion of the main contract and that the security payment is a deposit, not an advance payment, since the contract did not contain conditions that the payment remains with the company in case the main contract is not concluded. The court also emphasized that from the moment of opening proceedings in the bankruptcy case, it is considered that the term of fulfillment of all the debtor’s obligations has come.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 335/13616/21 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence caused by the illegal suspension of an employee from work.
2. The court of cassation, partially satisfying the cassation appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the existence of grounds for recovering average earnings for the period of forced absence, since the plaintiff’s suspension from work was признано illegal. The court emphasized that the defendant did not provide evidence of accrual of payment for the period of downtime, which would exclude the possibility of paying average earnings. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not agree with the distribution of court costs made by the previous instances, indicating that the costs of preparing for filing a claimtasks related to representing interests in court that do not require special professional skills are not subject to reimbursement as expenses for professional legal assistance. Also, the court noted that since the plaintiff did not submit a preliminary calculation of legal aid expenses in the appellate instance before the end of the debate, these expenses are not subject to reimbursement. The court also drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff is exempt from paying court fees for the claim for recovery of average earnings, therefore, court fees are to be recovered from the defendant in favor of the state.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the distribution of court costs and issued a new decision, which partially changed the distribution of court costs, reducing the amount to be paid to the plaintiff for legal aid, and recovered the court fee from the defendant in favor of the state.
Case No. 380/25592/23 dated May 26, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv region to include in the length of service as a judge, which is taken into account when calculating the monthly lifetime allowance of a retired judge, the periods of study at the law faculty and military service.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that, according to the current legislation in force at the time of the disputed legal relations, half of the period of study in full-time higher legal educational institutions and the calendar period of compulsory military service are included in the length of service of a judge, which entitles him to retire and receive a monthly lifetime allowance, provided that he has worked as a judge for at least 10 years. The court noted that the period of military service of the plaintiff as an investigator in a disciplinary battalion is a period of compulsory military service, since the disciplinary battalions were structural units of the USSR Armed Forces, and later Ukraine. Considering that the plaintiff has the necessary length of service as a judge, as well as periods of study and military service, his length of service, which entitles him to receive a monthly lifetime allowance, is 40 years 05 months 02 days, which entitles him to receive 90% of the judge’s remuneration.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claim and issued a new decision to satisfy the claim, obliging the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv region to include the period of military service in the length of service of the judge and recalculate the amount of the monthly lifetime allowance.
Case No. 466/2893/21 dated May 22, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on Person_6 for committing crimes,
related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic and potent drugs.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal because the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance to release Person_6 from serving the sentence with probation. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which took into account the severity of the crimes, their recurrence, Person_6’s prior conviction, and the fact that the presence of serious illnesses in her is not an unconditional basis for release from actual imprisonment. The court noted that the imposed sentence of imprisonment for a term of 5 years is fair, proportionate to the committed crimes, and necessary for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. The court of cassation emphasized that the circumstances referred to by the defender may be taken into account when deciding on release from serving a sentence due to illness in accordance with Article 84 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but are not sufficient for the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on release from serving a sentence with probation.
Decision: The judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal remains unchanged.
Case No. 906/474/24 dated May 21, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the tariff for electricity distribution services, namely, according to which voltage class (I or II) the calculation should be carried out between LLC “Zherok-Alfa” and JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo”.
2. The court of appeal established that LLC “Zherok-Alfa” receives electricity through the networks of Individual Entrepreneur Sholokh V.V. according to voltage class I, and there is no direct boundary of balance sheet ownership between LLC “Zherok-Alfa” and JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo”. JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo” charged a fee according to voltage class II, referring to the technical parameters in the contract, but the court decided that since the actual connection takes place through the networks of another entity according to voltage class I, the charging according to class II is unlawful. The Supreme Court supported the decision of the court of appeal, stating that the arguments of the cassation appeal of JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo” do not refute the conclusions of the court of appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s reference to the fact that the court of appeal did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases is unfounded, since the legal relations in those cases are not similar to this case. The Supreme Court also indicated that the court of appeal’s failure to examine the evidence collected in the case has not been established.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo” and left the decision of the court of appeal on the satisfaction of the claim of LLC “Zherok-Alfa” unchanged.
Case No. 910/4546/24 dated May 27, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Politekhavto-B” for the adoption of an additional court decision regarding the reimbursement of legal costs for legal assistance in the court of cassation in the case.
