**Case No. 166/789/24 dated 03/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for moral damage caused to a person by unlawful prosecution and trial.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the plaintiff suffered moral damage as a result of illegal criminal prosecution, including notification of suspicion, selection of a preventive measure, and suspension from office, which is confirmed by an acquittal. The court took into account the length of the investigation, the depth of moral suffering, the restrictions associated with house arrest, and suspension from office, and also proceeded from the amount of the minimum wage established by law at the time of compensation. The court also noted that compensation for moral damage is not a “payment” within the meaning of budget legislation, therefore, the provisions on limiting the amount of the minimum wage for calculating payments do not apply. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the court agreed that the plaintiff incurred such costs, but did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm their full amount, therefore they were partially reimbursed.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 236/1016/19-ц dated 06/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute was the recovery from the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway” in favor of a former employee of wage arrears and average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The courts of first and appellate instances partially satisfied the claim, motivating it by the fact that, upon the dismissal of the plaintiff, the defendant violated the requirements of Article 116 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, by not paying the wage arrears, compensation for unused vacation, and severance pay on the day of dismissal, and also, due to the violation of payment terms, is obliged to pay the average earnings for the entire period of delay in settlement upon dismissal and compensation for loss of part of income. JSC “Ukrainian Railway”, objecting to the claim, referred to force majeure circumstances, in particular the military aggression of the Russian Federation, which made it impossible to timely settle with the employee. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, took into account that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous conclusion that wages are a liability from which the employer may be released due to force majeure, emphasizing that the payment of wages is the employer’s obligation, and reference to force majeure circumstances does not exempt from this obligation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrainian Railway”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 725/5791/23 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the orders of the Kyiv Regional Council regarding the conduct of an official investigation and labor relations with the head of a communal enterprise.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the issue of removing a person from office for the duration of an official investigation is a discretionary power of the head of the body that ordered the investigation, and the court cannot interfere with these powers if they are exercised within the law. The court took into account that the official investigation was ordered on the basis of the Procedure for Conducting an Official Investigation, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and that the plaintiff did not refute the existence of grounds for such an investigation. Also, the court noted that there are no grounds to believe that the order to assign the duties of the general director to another person violates the plaintiff’s rights. The court of cassation emphasized that its role is to verify the correct application of legal norms, and not to establish the factual circumstances of the case, which have already been investigated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Case No. 604/617/24 dated 06/30/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land lease agreement as invalid in the part of the lessee and the transfer of the rights and obligations of the lessee to the plaintiff, the “Golden Lark” farm, which believes that its preferential right to renew the lease agreement was violated.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because in order to exercise the preferential right to renew the lease agreement, it is necessary to comply with the procedure established by Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease”, and to have the will of both parties to such renewal. In this case, although the lessee informed about his intention to exercise the preferential right, the lessor expressed objections to the renewal of the contract, informing about his intention to use the land plot for his own needs, which was done through an authorized person. The court also noted that sending a proposal by the lessee to extend the lease relations is not an unconditional basis for their renewal in the absence of the lessor’s will. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that they are based on the correct application of the norms of substantive law and a proper assessment of the circumstances of the case.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
**Case No. 643/17028/20 dated 06/04/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the order of dismissal,
regarding reinstatement at work and recovery of average earnings for the time of forced absence.
2. The court of appeal, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, proceeded from the fact that absenteeism is considered to be the absence of an employee not just at the workplace, but at work, and the absence of an employee at a fixed workplace, provided that they perform their labor functions on the territory of the enterprise, is not absenteeism. The court noted that the defendant did not prove the fact of the plaintiff’s absence from work without valid reasons, since the plaintiff was at work on September 5 and took exams, and on September 7 she was at the university. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff was not assigned a pedagogical workload for the academic year, and her working day, given the 0.5 rate, was three hours. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the employer has the obligation to prove the facts of the employee’s guilty commission of a disciplinary offense.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 757/10417/19 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 to recognize the termination of legal relations under the loan agreement concluded between PERSON_2 and PJSC “Bank Kambio” and to restore the situation that existed before the issuance of the order of the authorized person of the Deposit Guarantee Fund on the nullity of certain transactions.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the repayment of debt under the loan agreement took place at the expense of the guarantor’s deposit funds inside the bank, without the actual receipt of funds into the bank account, which is actually an adjustment of the bank’s balance sheet structure. The court noted that the intrabank transfer of funds could not be reflected on the bank’s correspondent account in the National Bank of Ukraine, which was mandatory according to the resolution of the NBU Board, and therefore, indicates the absence of actual payment. The court also took into account that although violation of NBU requirements in itself does not render the transaction void, in this case there was a gratuitous assignment of the right of claim under the loan agreement, since the bank did not actually receive real cash receipts. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the guarantee agreement had been fulfilled, since the courts established that the repayment was made at the expense of the plaintiff’s deposit funds, which is confirmed by the case materials.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 642/8191/19 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state executor to return the writ of execution to the claimant without acceptance for execution.
2. Suof appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the court decision, on the basis of which the writ of execution was issued, provides for the application of measures of compulsory execution, and the writ of execution itself is subject to execution by the state executive service. The court of appeal noted that the current legislation does not provide for the possibility of re-opening enforcement proceedings if they have already been terminated, but the subject of the appeal is the lawfulness of the return of the writ of execution to the claimant. The Supreme Court supported the position of the court of appeal, stating that the return of the writ of execution, subject to the existence of an uncancelled order on the termination of enforcement proceedings, is a violation of the right to judicial protection, which cannot be restricted even under martial law. The court of cassation also emphasized the binding nature of court decisions and the need to ensure their execution by the state. The arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced to the incorrect interpretation by the state enforcement officer of the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, since these provisions of the Law do not provide for the return of the writ of execution without execution in connection with the re-presentation for execution of the writ of execution, the enforcement proceedings for which have been terminated.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
Case No. 758/10108/15-ц dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a garage (former transformer substation) based on the claim of the heirs of a person who used this premise for a long time, against a company that registered ownership of the disputed property.
2. The court dismissed the claim, since the deceased acquired ownership only of building materials, and not the premise itself, and did not have proper legal grounds for acquiring ownership of it. The court noted that the company acquired ownership on the basis of the transfer of property to its statutory fund and state registration of this right. It is important that the deceased was granted only a temporary permit to keep a car in this premise, which does not create grounds for acquiring ownership. The court also took into account that the company paid rent for the land under the disputed object. In addition, the courts of previous instances established that the company repeatedly applied to law enforcement agencies regarding the legality of the use of the disputed property, which excludes the good faith use of the property by the deceased.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 175/779/17 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against the Communal Enterprise “Slobozhanska Central Hospital” and Dnipro
of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council on compensation for property and moral damage caused by improper medical care.
2. The court of cassation, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff had proven the fact of damage to health as a result of improper medical care provided by employees of the “Slobozhanska Central Hospital” Municipal Enterprise, which is the basis for compensation for moral damage. The court noted that the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court, taking into account the nature of the offense, the depth of physical and mental suffering, as well as the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence and establish a different amount of compensation if the courts of previous instances have complied with these criteria. Regarding the claims against the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, the court indicated that the responsibility for damage caused by employees of a medical institution lies directly with the institution itself, which is a legal entity, and not its owner. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove a causal link between the actions of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council and the damage caused.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of PERSON_1 and the “Slobozhanska Central Hospital” Municipal Enterprise, and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 140/7973/22 dated 07/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing the order to dismiss the head of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Volyn region by agreement of the parties.
The court of cassation, reversing the decision of the appellate court, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff had already been dismissed from her position based on her application, which was the subject of consideration in a previous case, where the court found the dismissal unlawful. In this case, the court of cassation emphasized that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force do not require proof in another case involving the same persons. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s voluntary expression of will to be dismissed was not proven, and after being reinstated, she did not submit any applications for dismissal. The court took into account that dismissal by agreement of the parties requires an agreement between the employee and the employer, and in this case, there was no such agreement. The court of cassation also pointed out the erroneous conclusion of the appellate court regarding the lack of grounds for satisfying the claims.
The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 813/1008/17 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and cancellation of the controlling authority’s order to conduct an unscheduled on-site documentary inspection.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decidecisions of previous instances courts, which refused to satisfy the taxpayer’s claim. The court noted that the order to conduct the audit was issued by the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Lviv region, i.e., the controlling body at the regional level, which meets the requirements of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that since January 1, 2017, the function of control and audit work has been assigned exclusively to the controlling bodies at the regional and central levels. Regarding the involvement of the chief state auditor-inspector of the Railway State Tax Inspectorate in the audit, the Supreme Court referred to the letter of the State Fiscal Service and Methodological Recommendations, which allow involving employees of the State Tax Inspectorate in conducting audits. The court also noted that since the plaintiff challenges the audit order in full, and not only in the part of authorizing a specific person, this indicates the unfoundedness of the claim. Additionally, the Supreme Court indicated that the letter of the State Fiscal Service and Methodological Recommendations are not regulatory legal acts, but regulate internal interaction between the subdivisions of the State Fiscal Service.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances courts.
Case No. 922/856/23 (922/1537/24) dated June 17, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid and the recovery of real estate from the possession of “Ukrainian Development Group” LLC in favor of the bankrupt enterprise “Solidarity.”
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances courts that “Ukrainian Development Group” LLC is a bona fide acquirer, since it acquired the property under a paid contract, after a significant period after the conclusion of the mortgage agreement, did not know and could not have known about the circumstances of the property leaving the ownership of the previous owner, and there was no information about encumbrances in the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court noted that satisfying the claim for recovery of property in this case would place an individual and excessive burden on the bona fide acquirer, which contradicts the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The court also took into account that the bank did not provide evidence of the connection of “Ukrainian Development Group” LLC with other parties in the case or the intention to harm third parties. The appellant’s arguments about the reduced purchase and sale price and the grounds for acquiring ownership by the seller are not an unconditional basis for recognizing the acquirer as dishonest. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is beyond its competence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances courts.
Case No. 1.380.2019.001145 dated June 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the executive committee of the city council on the refusal to extend the permit for the placement of a temporarystructure and regarding the arrangement of a transport stop, which included the dismantling of this structure.
2. The court of cassation instance, when reviewing the case, noted that the Law “On Local Self-Government in Ukraine” defines the general powers of the defendant but does not regulate the conditions and grounds for extending the permit for the placement of a temporary structure. At the same time, the Law “On Improvement of Settlements” empowers the city council to exercise self-governing control in the field of improvement, and the absence of a valid land easement agreement is the basis for dismantling the temporary structure in accordance with local regulations. The court also took into account that the defendant acted in the performance of владних управлінських functions defined by laws, in particular, regarding the organization of road traffic and ensuring safety. The court emphasized that although the passport of attachment of the temporary structure was extended, the absence of an extended land easement agreement makes the use of the land plot unlawful. The court did not agree with the arguments of the appellant regarding the violation by the court of appeal of the norms of procedural law, since the court of appeal does not have the authority to overturn the decision of the court of first instance and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, which rendered a decision on the merits of the dispute.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances, but left their decisions on refusing to satisfy the claim unchanged.
Case No. 199/9337/22 dated 02/07/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding a person convicted of drug-related crimes.
The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defender but did not satisfy them. The court partially changed the judicial decisions of the previous instances, namely, reduced the punishment imposed on the person under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, replacing it with a fine of UAH 17,000. The court probably took into account certain mitigating circumstances or concluded that the previous punishment under this article was excessively severe. In other respects, the verdict and ruling remained unchanged, which indicates the Supreme Court’s agreement with the qualification of the person’s actions under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and other aspects of the judicial decisions. The court emphasized the finality of its decision, which is not subject to appeal.
The court ruled: to leave the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the defender unsatisfied, and to change the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal in terms of the punishment under Part 1 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposing a fine.
Case No. 466/4962/18 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of inherited property, namely land plots, between a sister and b
rator.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which recognized the plaintiff’s right of ownership to the land plots, considering that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the inherited property, as well as the fact that a residential building inherited by the plaintiff is located on one of the plots. The court noted that оформлення оформлення inheritance rights through a notary is possible, but the courts consider disputes regarding the protection of inheritance rights in case of their violation, challenge, or non-recognition. The appellate court established that the plaintiff applied to a notary, but there were obstacles to оформлення оформлення the inheritance, which indicates the existence of a dispute that is subject to resolution in court. The arguments of the defendant’s cassation appeal did not refute the conclusions of the appellate court, since they were reduced to a subjective assessment of the circumstances that had already been analyzed by the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision recognizing the plaintiff’s right of ownership to the land plots.
Case No. 160/9196/23 dated 07/01/2025
The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal of a tax notice-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk Region regarding Dniproagroalliance LLC.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the tax authority, changing the reasoning part of the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court probably agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the illegality of the tax notice-decision, but disagreed with their reasoning. Perhaps the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law or did not take into account certain circumstances of the case when justifying their position. Changing the reasoning part may indicate that the Supreme Court clarified or reformulated the legal grounds for recognizing the tax notice-decision as illegal.
The court of cassation left unchanged the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the satisfaction of the claims of Dniproagroalliance LLC.
Case No. 917/1383/24 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the constituent assembly of the water users’ organization and the cancellation of its state registration, as well as the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recovered from the plaintiffs in favor of the defendant expenses for professional legal assistance, since it was established that an agreement on the provision of legal assistance with a fixed amount of fee, regardless of the time spent, was concluded between the defendant and the lawyer. The courts took into account that the lawyer actually provided services to the defendant, preparing and submitting the necessary documents
to the court, which is confirmed by the case file materials. It was also taken into account that the subject of the dispute was non-property claims, therefore, the criterion of proportionality of costs to the claim price is inappropriate. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence of the disproportion of the declared expenses, and their statements are only a subjective opinion. The court also emphasized that it is not obliged to award all attorney’s fees, but in this case, the courts of previous instances reasonably satisfied the defendant’s application, taking into account all the circumstances of the case and the criteria defined by procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 910/9577/21 dated 06/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the owner in the use and disposal of an architectural monument by canceling the order in the part of termination of ownership and obligation to return the real estate object.
2. The court of cassation left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged, supporting the position that the architectural monument “House of the First Thermal Power Plant” actually did not leave state ownership, and its registration for PJSC “Zaporizhzhiaoblenergo” violates the rights of the state. The court noted that the defendant acquired the disputed property in the process of corporatization, which was a preparation for privatization, but the privatization was not completed. The court also took into account the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that the transfer of state property to the authorized capital of a joint-stock company is not a way of its privatization, and the property remains in state ownership until the privatization procedure is completed. The court agreed that the method of protecting rights chosen by the prosecutor by filing a negatory claim is effective for restoring the violated right of the state, since the disputed legal relations are negatory in nature, and the claim was filed within the statute of limitations, since the violation of the state’s interests is connected with the registration of the ownership of the disputed object in 2020.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 520/25486/24 dated 07/01/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the Pension Fund’s refusal to index the plaintiff’s pension, taking into account certain coefficients of increase in the average wage.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, noted that when recalculating pensions assigned in 2020-2023, in connection with the annual indexation, the indicator of the average wage, which was taken into account when calculating the pension, should be increased, as provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance”. The court emphasized that the provision
of the Procedure for Recalculation of Pensions, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, are inconsistent with the provisions of the Law, as they differently define the indicator to be increased. The court also took into account the time limits for appealing to the court, establishing that the protection of the right to index a pension may be limited by the time limit for appealing to the court established by procedural law. In this regard, the court granted the claim only partially, limiting the period of payment of underpaid pension amounts to six months prior to the date of application to the court. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court regarding the application of substantive law in similar cases.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the actions of the Pension Fund as unlawful and obliging it to recalculate and pay the pension, taking into account the relevant coefficients, but limiting the period of payment of underpaid pension amounts to six months prior to the date of application to the court, and leaving the claims for the previous period without consideration.
Case No. 991/1897/25 dated 06/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is a claim for the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue, namely apartments and a car acquired by relatives of officials.
2. The court found that PERSON_1, PERSON_2, and PERSON_4, at the time of acquisition of the disputed assets, were persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, and PERSON_3 is their relative. The court established a connection between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 with an apartment at one address, and between PERSON_4 with an apartment and a car at another address, as they had the opportunity to perform actions in relation to these assets that were identical in content to the exercise of the right to dispose of them. The court critically assessed the arguments of the defendants regarding the financial capacity of PERSON_3 to acquire the disputed assets from legitimate income, as the evidence provided (lease agreements, loans) raised doubts about their reliability and feasibility. The court also took into account that the income of PERSON_1, PERSON_2, and PERSON_4 did not allow them to acquire the relevant assets. The court emphasized that for the satisfaction of the claims, a set of factual circumstances, confirmed by evidence, with which the law connects the acquisition of assets by a person authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, and the corresponding difference between their value and legitimate income, is sufficient.
3. The court decided to satisfy the claim and recover from the defendants the value of unjustified assets and income received from their sale to the state revenue.
Case No. 754/18852/21 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a sale and purchase agreement for non-residential premises concluded between Tenensi Group LLC and an individual as invalid, and the cancellation of state
registration of ownership of this premise.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which declared the purchase and sale agreement invalid, since Tenensi Group LLC, knowing about the existing debt to PrJSC “Dniprozv`yazok”, sold its only property at an understated price in order to avoid debt collection. The court took into account that the buyer, PERSON_1, was also a creditor of Tenensi Group LLC, and the conclusion of this agreement gave preference to one creditor over another, which contradicts the principle of good faith. The court also rejected arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff learned about the violation of their rights only after receiving information from the State Register of Real Property Rights. The court of cassation emphasized that private law instruments should not be used to evade debt payment.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Rent 3000 LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 199/4716/24 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the rulings of the court of first instance and the court of appeal regarding the closed criminal proceedings concerning PERSON_7.
2. The operative part of the decision does not contain the court’s arguments. To provide arguments, it is necessary to analyze the full text of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the courts of previous instances and refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 761/2768/23 dated 25/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of the father from the right to inheritance after the death of his son based on evasion of support.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact that the defendant evaded his parental responsibilities to support his son, and witness testimony alone is not irrefutable evidence of this fact; the court took into account that the father was not deprived of parental rights, and the mother did not apply to the court for alimony collection; the courts of previous instances investigated the circumstances of the case sufficiently to make lawful and justified court decisions in the disputed part; the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced exclusively to the need for the court to re-evaluate the evidence, which is not within the competence of the court of cassation.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/9565/24 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion for the referral of criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
2. The Supreme Court denied the motion.
defense counsel’s motion without providing detailed argumentation in the operative part of the ruling. The court referred to Article 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows limiting the drafting and announcement of only the operative part of the court decision if the drafting of the full text requires considerable time. Thus, the motives that guided the court remain unknown until the full text of the ruling is announced. The judges decided that there were no grounds for transferring the case to another court within different appellate districts. The court noted that the ruling is not subject to appeal. The final motives will be stated in the full text of the ruling.
2. The court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion.
Case No. 759/14046/23 dated 02/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person under Parts 1, 3, 4 of Article 358 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (forgery of documents, seals, stamps, and forms, sale or use of forged documents, seals, stamps).
2. The arguments of the court are not provided in the operative part of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6, and to uphold the verdict of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of December 04, 2024, regarding PERSON_6.
Case No. 910/1599/23 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) on the violation by LLC “Euro-Reconstruction” of the legislation on protection of economic competition.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim of LLC “Euro-Reconstruction,” based on the fact that the company abused its monopoly position by not reducing the heating fee for consumers due to the decrease in the price of gas in 2019-2020, although it had legal grounds for this according to the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1082. The court noted that LLC “Euro-Reconstruction” had legal and economic grounds for recalculation, as the purchase prices for gas significantly decreased, and the company’s inaction led to the infringement of consumers’ interests. The court also rejected the arguments of LLC “Euro-Reconstruction” about the absence of an obligation to recalculate, emphasizing that the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1082 is mandatory for execution, and the absence of a clear methodology for recalculation does not release the company from liability. The court indicated that the arguments of the cassation appeal come down to a revaluation of evidence, which is beyond the scope of cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Euro-Reconstruction,” and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 420/22461/23 dated 01/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the municipal enterprise regarding the maintenance of protective
readiness for use, and the obligation to take actions to bring it to a proper condition.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the prosecutor’s claim without consideration, as the prosecutor did not adequately substantiate the grounds for appealing to the court in the interests of the state. The court noted that the prosecutor may represent the interests of the state only in cases where the relevant authority does not provide protection or does so inadequately, and the prosecutor cannot be considered an alternative entity for appealing to the court. The court also indicated that neither the State Emergency Service of Ukraine in Odesa Oblast nor the Odesa Regional Military Administration has the authority to appeal to the court with such claims, and therefore, the prosecutor cannot act in their interests. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the defendant in this case is a legal entity that is not a subject of владні повноваження (public authority powers), which contradicts the provisions of the CAS of Ukraine.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 913/438/24 dated 06/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Education Department of the Novopskov Settlement Council in favor of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading” of debt for supplied natural gas, penalties, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to recover the penalty and 3% per annum, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence of fulfilling its obligation to provide the defendant with originals of signed gas acceptance and transfer certificates, which is a necessary condition for the obligation to pay to arise according to the terms of the contract. The appellate court noted that the possibility of using data from the information platform of the GTS Operator to determine the volume of gas consumed is provided only if the supplier has previously sent the consumer a signed certificate, which the consumer did not return. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the absence of a violation of a monetary obligation under Articles 611, 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine makes it impossible to satisfy the claims for recovery of penalties and 3% per annum. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure to consider previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were not confirmed, as the circumstances of the cases referred to by the appellant were not similar to the circumstances of this case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz Trading.”
Case No. 826/14509/17 dated 06/30/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “DTM CRAFT” against the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine regarding the obligation to restore the amount of value-added tax for which the plaintiff has the right to register tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices, for the period from 09.12.2015 until the moment the court decision enters into legal force in і
in another case.
2. The court dismissed the claim, considering that the obligation to restore the amount of tax credit is imposed on the State Tax Inspectorate in the Shevchenkivskyi District of the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in Kyiv by the court decision in case No. 826/1155/16, which has entered into legal force. The court noted that VAT electronic administration is carried out by the State Fiscal Service, but this does not relieve the State Tax Inspectorate of the obligation to execute the court decision. Also, the court indicated that the plaintiff has the right to apply to the court within case No. 826/1155/16 with a request to change the method of execution of the court decision or to appeal the inaction of the State Tax Inspectorate in the execution of this decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial control over the execution of a court decision is carried out within the framework of the case in which the decision was made, and does not provide for the filing of a separate claim with similar requirements. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that by a court order in case No. 826/1155/16, the debtor has already been replaced with the State Tax Service of Ukraine, which does not violate the plaintiff’s rights to the execution of the court decision.
3. The court left the cassation appeal of DTM KRAFT LLC unsatisfied, and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 546/924/16-ц dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the warrant for residential premises (official apartment) issued by the executive committee of the Reshetylivka settlement council.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the claim of Ukrtransgaz JSC, motivating this by the fact that the disputed apartment had the status of an official apartment and was under the jurisdiction of the plaintiff, which was established by previous court decisions in administrative cases that had entered into legal force, and therefore, the executive committee had no right to issue a warrant for this apartment to the defendant. The courts referred to Article 58 of the Housing Code of Ukraine, which stipulates that a warrant can only be issued for vacant residential premises, and in this case the apartment was not vacant. Considering that the defendant moved into the apartment not as a result of illegal actions, the court ordered the executive committee to provide him with other residential premises that correspond in size and amenities to the previous ones. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the statute of limitations, considering that the plaintiff initially filed an administrative claim with the court, and the statute of limitations was renewed in view of the need to protect the right to access justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 159/4656/22 dated 06/25/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the appellate court to refuse to satisfy the application for the adoption of an additional court decision regarding the recovery of expenses for conducting an examination.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of
