Case №991/528/19 dated 09/06/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_6 of abuse of office, which caused grave consequences for a state enterprise.
2. The court found it proven that PERSON_6, holding the position of General Director of SE “INFORMATION_1”, acting in prior conspiracy with Person – 1, in the interests of the company INFORMATION_16, abused his official position. The court established that PERSON_6, while on a business trip to Canada, signed a letter instructing the Canadian company MDA to make a payment to the company INFORMATION_16, contrary to the interests of the service and existing contractual obligations. This led to the transfer of 26.1 million US dollars to the account of INFORMATION_16, of which 8.245 million US dollars were embezzled by Person – 1 for purposes not related to the creation of the National Satellite Communication System (NSCS), which caused damages to SE “INFORMATION_1”. The court also took into account that PERSON_6 did not report the signing of the letter and did not register it in the relevant documents of the enterprise, trying to hide his actions. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the absence of damages, referring to the conclusions of expert examinations and other evidence confirming the fact of causing harm to SE “INFORMATION_1”.
3. The court rendered a guilty verdict, finding PERSON_6 guilty of committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Code, and imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a term of 5 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, but released him from serving the sentence due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case №991/3097/23 dated 11/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of an official (PERSON_6) and a lawyer (PERSON_7) of corruption crimes related to extortion and receiving undue advantage.
2. The court found it proven that PERSON_6, using his official position, in prior conspiracy with PERSON_7, received a part of the undue advantage in the amount of 5,000 US dollars for the closure of criminal proceedings and non-performance of investigative actions. Also, PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 incited PERSON_12 to provide undue advantage to the management of the prosecutor’s office for assistance in closing criminal proceedings. The court took into account the testimony of witnesses, materials of covert investigative (search) actions, conclusions of expert examinations and other evidence. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the provocation of a crime, violation of jurisdiction, and inadmissibility of evidence. The court excluded from the indictment the qualifying element of extortion of undue advantage, as well as the element of comfalsely accusing them of committing a crime in the interests of a third party, as these circumstances were not confirmed during the trial.
3. The court found PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 guilty of committing the incriminated crimes and imposed sentences of imprisonment with confiscation of property, as well as additional penalties.
Case No. 910/7607/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of property (parking spaces in the parking lot) and the recognition of the invalidity of the agreement on the transfer of the right to use these spaces.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the claim, arguing that the agreements on granting the right to operate parking spaces are void, as they were concluded in violation of the procedure for the transfer of land plots for lease. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, failing to take into account that such agreements, by their legal nature, are lease agreements for communal property, and therefore are regulated by special legislation on the lease of communal property, and not by land legislation. The court noted that it is necessary to investigate whether there were violations of the norms of legislation on the lease of communal property when concluding the agreements. The court also pointed out that the references of the courts to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and other decisions of the Supreme Court are unfounded, as they concerned appeals against decisions of local self-government bodies on the approval of the list of land plots for parking, and not agreements on the transfer of the right to use these plots.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 905/738/23 dated June 5, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the private enforcement officer regarding the failure to comply with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Measures Aimed at Overcoming Crisis Phenomena and Ensuring Financial Stability in the Natural Gas Market” in terms of suspending enforcement proceedings and lifting the seizure of funds of the debtor, who is participating in the debt settlement procedure in the gas market.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the private enforcement officer was obliged to suspend enforcement actions and lift the seizure of funds of PJSC “Donetskoblhaz”, as the enterprise is in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in accordance with Law No. 1639-IX, and the amount of debt isis subject to settlement in accordance with this Law; the provisions of Law No. 1639-IX apply not only to the principal debt that arose during a specified period but also to all financial obligations derived from it, including penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses, regardless of the period of their accrual; the private enforcement officer’s independent assessment of which part of the debt is subject to settlement exceeds their authority; the Court dismisses the appellants’ arguments that the amounts of penalties, 3% per annum, and inflation losses accrued after February 28, 2022, are not subject to settlement under the Law of Ukraine No. 1639-IX as unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of LLC “Operator GTS of Ukraine” and the private enforcement officer, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 914/2333/22 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot to the ownership of a service cooperative and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership of this plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim because it considered that the prosecutor had chosen an ineffective way to protect the violated right of the state. The court noted that in the case where the land plot is already owned by the cooperative, the proper way to protect is to file a vindication claim, i.e., a claim for the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, and not just to appeal the decision to transfer the plot to ownership. The court also emphasized that the cancellation of the decision of the local self-government body without simultaneously demanding the land plot will not lead to effective protection of the rights of the state. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments about the need to deviate from the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, as there was insufficient justification for such a deviation, and the arguments about the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of certain legal norms in similar legal relations were not confirmed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 921/358/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages from LLC “UKR GAZ RESOURCE” in favor of CP “Ternopilvodokanal” due to an allegedly unjustified refusal to adjust the price of electricity under the contract.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, which refused to satisfy the
