**Case No. 991/4164/23 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Appeal against the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court in a case where the defendant is PERSON_1.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, after reviewing the appeal by attorney Shpak V.I., concluded that there are no grounds for its satisfaction and that the decision of the first instance was made in accordance with the law. The court considered the arguments of the parties and found no grounds to review the decision that had already been issued on January 19, 2024.
**Court Decision:** The appeal by the defendant’s representative was left **unsatisfied**, and the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated January 19, 2024, was left **unchanged**.
**Case No. 760/7205/22 dated 01/11/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Accusation of PERSON_7 in the embezzlement of property of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine through the purchase of apartments at inflated prices.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The court focused on the fact that **the prosecution failed to prove the illegality of PERSON_7’s actions** and his intent to embezzle, as the monitoring of apartment prices complied with standards, and the signed contracts were approved by the relevant commissions. The court also considered expert conclusions that **confirmed the absence of damages** to the Ministry of Defense and that the decision on the cost per square meter of housing was made by a competitive commission.
3. **Court Decision:** The court issued an **acquittal** for PERSON_7, finding him not guilty of the alleged offense due to the absence of a crime.
**Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Recognition and enforcement of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court regarding the recovery of funds in an arbitration dispute between TOTALGAZ INDUSTRIE srl (Romania) and LLC “Naftogazmontazh” (Ukraine).
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal by LLC “Naftogazmontazh” against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which had previously satisfied the application of TOTALGAZ INDUSTRIE srl for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitration decision. After examining the case materials, the court decided that there are no grounds for satisfying the appeal, as the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal complies with Ukrainian legislation.
**Court Decision:** The appeal by LLC “Naftogazmontazh” was left unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated July 22, 2024, was left unchanged, confirming the possibility of enforcing the arbitration decision.
**Case No. 645/5106/21 dated 31/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Compensation for damages (moral and material) to PERSON_1 for unlawful criminal prosecution by the state of Ukraine represented by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
**Main Arguments of the Court:**
1. **The Supreme Court** confirmed that PERSON_1 is entitled to compensation under **Article 1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine** and **Law No. 266/94-VR**, as her innocence was confirmed by the court.
2. Regarding legal assistance costs, the courts established that PERSON_1 provided proper documentary evidence of the expenses incurred for legal assistance during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office unsatisfied, confirming the decisions of the previous instances to recover legal assistance costs from the state budget in favor of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Recognition and granting permission for the enforcement of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) regarding the recovery of debt between TOTALGAZ INDUSTRIE srl (Romania) and LLC “Naftogazmontazh” (Ukraine).
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal by LLC “Naftogazmontazh,” which claimed that the arbitration decision contradicts the public order of Ukraine, as TOTALGAZ INDUSTRIE srl is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings in Romania. **The court noted** that the recognition and enforcement procedure of arbitration decisions is independent of bankruptcy proceedings and that **no violations of public order** were found. Thus, the arbitration decision does not hinder the public order of Ukraine and can be enforced in Ukraine.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the appeal by LLC “Naftogazmontazh” unsatisfied, and the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated July 22, 2024, unchanged, confirming the possibility of enforcing the ICAC decision.
**Case No. 922/813/21 dated 16/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Challenging the legality of the alienation of communal property objects of the territorial community of Kharkiv, including the invalidation of the sale contract between the Department of Communal Property and PE “Topaz” and the reclamation of property back to the community.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The court listened to the prosecutor’s arguments, who claimed that the Kharkiv City Council, without a proper competitive process, violated the interests of the state and the community by selling communal property to PE “Topaz” on non-competitive terms, and that this decision contradicts legislative requirements. The prosecutor justified his right to act on behalf of the state because the relevant authorities, having themselves become participants in the offense, cannot effectively protect state interests.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court of Ukraine left the cassation appeals unsatisfied and confirmed the decision of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal, thereby recognizing the validity of the prosecutor’s claim and confirming his right to represent the state’s interests in this case.
**Case No. 912/3258/21 dated 29/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Private enterprise “Stroy-Arsenal” filed a lawsuit to recover 4,347,836.60 UAH from the State Enterprise “United Company “Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya” for unfulfilled obligations regarding payment for completed works under a contract.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The court was guided by the fact that the private enterprise “Stroy-Arsenal” fulfilled the terms of the contract, but the defendant did not sign the acts of completed works and did not make the payment. According to Articles 123, 126, 129 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the courts of first and appellate instances properly examined the evidence and concluded the validity of the claims, as well as determined the appropriate amount of compensation for legal assistance, considering the principles of reasonableness and proportionality of expenses.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and confirmed the decision of the previous instances.
**Case No. 916/3599/23 dated 29/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Dispute between two companies regarding the invalidation of a unilateral transaction to terminate a lease agreement for a non-residential building due to force majeure circumstances and violation of rent payment terms.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
– The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of rent payment for the specified period, which gave the landlord the right to terminate the contract unilaterally according to Article 782 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
– Considering the absence of evidence of rent payment for three consecutive months, the court granted the landlord the right to unilaterally terminate the contract and denied the initial claim for invalidation of this transaction.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, closed the cassation proceedings regarding the appeal, left the cassation appeals of LLC “Rent Control” unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 873/103/24 dated 29/10/2024**
**Subject of Dispute:** Issuance of an order for the enforcement of a decision of an arbitration court regarding the recovery of debt under a supply contract between LLC “Company “NOTAPS” and FG “MERCURY”.
**Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court was guided by: 1) **the existence of a valid arbitration agreement** between the parties, confirming the competence of the arbitration court to consider the dispute; 2) **the absence of grounds for refusal** to issue an order for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision, as the decision was not annulled, the deadline for appeal was not missed, and the arbitration agreement was not declared invalid.
**Court Decision:** The Supreme Court **canceled the previous decision of the appellate commercial court** and satisfied the application of LLC “Company “NOTAPS” for the issuance of an enforcement document for the enforcement of the arbitration court’s decision, obliging FG “MERCURY” to pay the debt and court costs.
**Case No. 910/8328/23 (757/51177/21-c) dated 22/10/2024**
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Invalidation of an agency services agreement and recovery of funds from individual entrepreneur Shcherbets Yevheniya Yuriyivna.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The court of first and appellate instances…The court of the final instance established that the contract was concluded **without authority** on the part of PERSON_1, who did not have the right to represent the interests of LLC “Accent-Novotel”. Furthermore, at the time of the contract’s conclusion, PERSON_1 **was not an authorized person**, and there are no powers of attorney or other documents confirming his authority. It was also noted that the contract does not contain signs of a contract in favor of a third party, which excludes the application of Article 636 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Shcherbets Yevheniya Yuriyivna and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the recognition of the contract as invalid.
Case No. 921/227/20 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Appeal against the decision to approve the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance, liquidation of the legal entity LLC “Mriya Agroholding” and closure of the bankruptcy case.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the **liquidator properly fulfilled his duties**, including conducting an inventory and realizing assets, as evidenced by the liquidation balance, according to which the bankrupt had no remaining assets to satisfy creditors’ claims. The court also emphasized that the **creditor did not exercise his right** to file claims against third parties responsible for the bankruptcy and that the creditor could have independently appealed the decision of the first instance court but did not do so.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of Ternopil Region and the decision of the Western Appellate Commercial Court, confirming the approval of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance.
Case No. 910/72/24 dated 24/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Calculation and recovery of penalties and inflation losses under the natural gas transportation contract between LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” and JSC “National Joint Stock Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine”.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeals of both parties but closed the cassation proceedings on “Naftogaz’s” appeal, as the conclusion regarding the application of the law, set out in the Supreme Court’s decision, does not pertain to similar legal relations in this case. The court confirmed that the application of penalties must comply with the principles of reasonableness and fairness, considering circumstances such as military actions on the territory of Ukraine. Although “Naftogaz” argued that inflation losses should be recovered for the entire period of delay, the court found no relevance of previous Supreme Court decisions to this case, as the periods of indebtedness did not coincide.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instances unchanged, closed the cassation proceedings on “Naftogaz’s” appeal, and dismissed the appeal of the “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”.
Case No. 906/291/22 dated 31/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of costs for professional legal assistance from individual entrepreneur Meshcheryakov Serhiy Mykolayovych in favor of JSC “Zhytomyroblenergo”.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The cassation court concluded that the justified amount of costs for professional legal assistance, determined by the courts of previous instances, meets the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, taking into account the complexity of the case, time, and volume of legal services provided. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate complaint did not contain specific evidence of incorrect application of the law by the courts of previous instances, thus there are no grounds for changing or canceling the decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous judicial instances, recognizing them as lawful and justified.
Case No. 910/2248/23 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** The lawsuit of PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” against the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and its territorial division regarding the recognition of inaction in considering the application on violation of competition protection legislation and obliging to make an appropriate procedural decision.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court supported the decisions of the lower courts that the letter sent by the Antimonopoly Committee is a decision to refuse to consider the case, and PJSC “Ukrenergo” missed the statutory two-month period to appeal this decision. The court also emphasized that inaction in this situation cannot be recognized, as the period is peremptory and not subject to renewal.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal **without satisfaction** and confirmed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances to refuse the satisfaction of the claim of PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”.
Case No. 917/273/20 dated 23/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Recognition of the decision on the lease of a land plot as illegal and annulment of the lease agreement.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The **prosecutor** substantiated the grounds for representing the interests of the state, as the **local self-government body** allowed violations of state interests, and such grounds were duly stated in the claim. The Supreme Court referred to **previous decisions** of the Grand Chamber, which confirm the prosecutor’s right to act in similar cases.
3. **Court Decision:** The **court annulled** the previous decisions of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court and the Commercial Court of Poltava Region, sending the case for further consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 913/410/23 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** Recognition of the procurement contract as invalid due to anti-competitive concerted actions of the tender participants and application of the consequences of the contract’s invalidity.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court indicated that the previous courts incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, did not consider the peculiarities of applying Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the invalidity of transactions that contradict the interests of the state and society. The court also noted that the previous courts equated administrative-economic sanctions with the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, which does not correspond to the legal nature of the specified legal relations. The court recognized that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence of the parties’ intent to conclude a contract that contradicts the interests of the state and society.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court annulled the previous decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Luhansk Region for a detailed examination of all circumstances and evidence in the case.
Case No. 922/376/18 dated 29/10/2024
1. **Subject of Dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of a debt amounting to 4,196,577.22 UAH for consumed electric energy under a contract between Joint Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergo” and Municipal Enterprise “Kharkivvodokanal”.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted the application of tariffs for a 1st class consumer, which was determined in previous decisions as justified. The court established that the calculation of electricity losses and the issued invoices comply with the requirements of paragraphs 6.23, 6.26, and 6.28 of the Rules for the Use of Electric Energy, as confirmed by expert conclusions. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the appellate court allegedly did not consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court in previous decisions.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Municipal Enterprise “Kharkivvodokanal” and upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the legality of the debt recovery.
Case No. 917/53/21 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute was the **recognition of the results of the state procurement and the contract for the capital repair of a military canteen in the city of Poltava as invalid**.
The prosecution, in the interests of the **Ministry of Defense of Ukraine**, claimed that the procurement was conducted **with violations**, while the defendants — **the Housing and Operational Department of the city of Poltava** and **LLC “Tekhnobud-Ukraine”** — denied this, insisting on the legality of the tender.
The courts of first and appellate instances **denied the prosecution’s claim**.
The court established that **the rejection of other tender participants was justified**, as they did not meet the requirements of the tender documentation, and **LLC “Tekhnobud-Ukraine” fully met these requirements**. The court also noted that **recognition of the results as invalid was not justified**.права власності на нерухоме майно, яке належить ОСОБА_1, шляхом знесення самовільно збудованої споруди, що належить ОСОБА_2.
**Основні аргументи суду:** Верховний Суд зазначив, що право власності є непорушним, і будь-які перешкоди у його здійсненні повинні бути усунені. Суд підкреслив, що самовільне будівництво не може бути підставою для обмеження прав власника сусідньої ділянки. Крім того, суд звернув увагу на те, що ОСОБА_2 не отримав належних дозволів на будівництво, що є порушенням містобудівного законодавства.
**Рішення суду:** Верховний Суд залишив рішення судів попередніх інстанцій без змін, зобов’язавши ОСОБА_2 знести самовільно збудовану споруду, яка перешкоджає здійсненню права власності ОСОБА_1 на нерухоме майно.and the defendant — the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ), which denied these claims.
**Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court found that the HQCJ’s inaction was not unlawful, as the procedures for considering such applications were followed according to the current legislation. The court noted that the judge’s arguments did not find confirmation in the case materials, and there was no evidence of any violations by the HQCJ.
**Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts, which found no grounds for the claims against the HQCJ. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the absence of any proven misconduct by the Commission.3. The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court denied the claim of PERSON_1.
4. The main facts were that PERSON_1 submitted an application to the HQCJ requesting the dismissal of Commission member PERSON_2, alleging gross negligence of duties and abuse of power. The HQCJ put the issue of including this application on the agenda of the plenary session to a vote, but the Commission members unanimously voted against its inclusion. The court found that the HQCJ acted in accordance with its Regulations, which allow Commission members to determine the meeting agenda. Thus, it was concluded that there was no inaction by the HQCJ, as the Commission took actions to consider the plaintiff’s application and no violations were committed.
5. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left PERSON_1’s appeal without satisfaction.
Case No. 199/3237/23 dated 04/11/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Recovery of a land plot of 2 hectares in favor of the Nikolska Village Council and cancellation of the lease right registered to the subsidiary enterprise “Illich-Agro Donbas.”
2. Main arguments of the court: The court of first instance denied the claim, guided by the presumption of legality of acquiring ownership rights and the absence of evidence of document forgery confirming the legality of PERSON_1’s ownership rights. The appellate court also did not satisfy the complaint, citing the absence of evidence of forgery of the relevant orders and documents, and noted that the presence of two orders with different texts does not confirm their invalidity.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and all previous court decisions unchanged, recognizing them as lawful and justified.
Case No. 206/546/24 dated 30/10/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Forced hospitalization of PERSON_1 in a psychiatric institution without his informed consent.
2. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, pointing out procedural violations during the appellate review, particularly the lack of proper notification of the case participant and his representative about the court hearing. The court emphasized that such cases should be considered with the mandatory participation of a lawyer to ensure the rights and freedoms of the individual.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Dnipro Appellate Court and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance.
Case No. 522/8859/23 dated 14/08/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerns the proper delivery of a court decision, which was sent to the defendant’s email address, leading to the missed deadline for filing an appeal.
2. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court noted that sending procedural documents to an email address that is not part of the official electronic system is not proper delivery according to procedural law. The court emphasized that a copy of the court decision should be sent by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt if the case participant is not registered in the court’s electronic system. Thus, the appellate court incorrectly refused to open proceedings, citing that the defendant received the decision by email.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the defendant’s cassation appeal, annulled the appellate court’s decision, and sent the case back to the appellate court to address the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 760/28176/21 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Plaintiff PERSON_1 challenges the right to use the apartment where she has lived since 1983 and demands recognition of this right due to her permanent residence in the disputed apartment.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court found that the Solomyanska District State Administration and the Municipal Enterprise were not properly notified about the appellate review, which violates the principles of adversarial proceedings and fairness of the judicial process, according to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court also noted that improper notification of case participants is grounds for annulling the appellate court’s decision and returning the case for a new review.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, annulled the appellate court’s decision, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 800/286/16 dated 31/10/2024
December 5, 2018, and the three-year period for filing an application for review due to newly discovered circumstances ended on December 5, 2021; since the application was filed in July 2024.
Case No. 260/1011/23 dated 04/11/2024
1. Subject of the dispute: Limited Liability Company “Eco XXI Century” challenges the decision of the Uzhhorod City Council, made during martial law, to establish fees for temporary use of communal spaces for placing advertising means, considering it illegal due to non-compliance with regulatory policy procedures.
2. Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court recognized that under martial law, according to part ten of Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law,” the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On the Principles of State Regulatory Policy in the Field of Economic Activity” do not apply to normative legal acts of local self-government bodies, such as the decision of the Uzhhorod City Council. This means that the city council had the right to make decisions in a simplified manner without adhering to all the requirements of the usual regulatory procedure, justified by the need for prompt decision-making to ensure the community’s viability and defense capability during the war.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision, which denied the claim of LLC “Eco XXI Century,” recognizing the decision of the Uzhhorod City Council, made during martial law, as lawful.
Case No. 420/23960/21 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Challenging the actions of the state supervision body in the field of fire and technogenic safety regarding conducting a scheduled inspection and issuing an order to eliminate violations.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the territorial bodies of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SES) have the authority to conduct scheduled inspections in the field of fire and technogenic safety, as they are part of the central executive body. The legislation does not require inspections to be conducted collegially by all persons specified in the certificate and allows individual preparation of inspection reports by officials. Thus, the plaintiff’s references to the need for collegial inspection were deemed unfounded.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Private Enterprise “Nika-2” unsatisfied and confirmed the legality of the decisions of the lower courts regarding the lawfulness of the inspection conducted by the territorial body of the SES.
Case No. 947/30465/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: Debt recovery under a loan agreement between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.
Main arguments of the court in making the decision included that the courts of previous instances correctly determined the appropriateness of securing the claim by seizing PERSON_2’s property, considering that it was commensurate with the claims and met the criteria for securing the claim. The Supreme Court indicated that the measures taken by the lower courts were adequate and aimed at preventing difficulties in executing a possible court decision.
The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the Odesa Appellate Court unchanged, confirming the legality of the actions of the lower courts.
Case No. 990/39/24 dated 31/10/2024
PERSON_1’s decision of the High Council of Justice to deny his claims.
2. The plaintiff, PERSON_1, requested the annulment of the decision of the High Council of Justice, the defendant – the High Council of Justice – defended the legality of its decision.
3. The courts of previous instances denied the claim of PERSON_1 and left the decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.
4. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeal of PERSON_1 and, after analyzing the case materials and the parties’ arguments, found no grounds for its satisfaction. The court established that the decision of the High Council of Justice was made in compliance with the law.compliance with legislative requirements and procedural norms. The plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of his rights were not confirmed during the case review. Thus, the court concluded that there were no grounds to annul the contested decision.
5. The court decided to leave the appeal of INDIVIDUAL_1 without satisfaction, and the decision of the lower court unchanged.
Case No. 178/567/23 dated 04/11/2024
1. **Subject of the dispute**: Challenging the lease agreement of a land plot and the state registration of the lease right, with a demand to declare the lease agreement not concluded on the grounds that the land plot already belongs to other persons.
2. **Main arguments of the court**: The Supreme Court concluded that **the plaintiffs are not parties to the lease agreement** contested in the case, therefore their rights and interests are not violated by the conclusion of this agreement. The court also noted that **the land plots have the same cadastral number, but this is a result of an error that is subject to correction according to the established procedure**. Accordingly, the court did not establish a violation of the plaintiffs’ rights in connection with the conclusion of the lease agreement.
3. **Court decision**: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court, which denied the plaintiffs’ claim to declare the lease agreement not concluded, unchanged.
