Case No. 991/4164/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute cannot be determined, as only the introductory and operative parts of the court decision are provided without the descriptive and motivational parts. The court does not provide arguments for the decision, as the motivational part is absent in the provided text. The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the appeal of lawyer Shpak V.I. unsatisfied and left the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated January 19, 2024, unchanged.
Case No. 760/7205/22 dated 01/11/2024
The court in its decision relied on the following: 1) attempts to conduct tenders at a lower price were unsuccessful due to the lack of market offers; 2) a repeated extended price monitoring conducted by the Main Procurement and Contracts Department of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, taking into account housing prices from previous years, substantiated the established price; 3) the absence of a clearly defined methodology for monitoring housing prices in regulatory documents does not allow claiming a procedural violation.
Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is recognition and permission to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery of 263,301.64 euros from a Ukrainian company in favor of a Romanian company. Unfortunately, the provided introductory and operative parts of the resolution lack the court’s arguments, as this is an abbreviated version of the decision. However, it can be noted that the case went through two stages of judicial review – in the Kyiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which consistently supported the Romanian company’s position regarding the enforcement of the arbitral award. The Supreme Court left the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s ruling unchanged and rejected the appeal of LLC “Naftogazmontazh”.
Case No. 645/5106/21 dated 31/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff provided proper evidence of legal assistance expenses (contract, service acceptance certificate, bank receipts). The court noted that the mere fact of paying for a lawyer’s services after the criminal proceedings were completed cannot be a reason for refusal of compensation, as the services were provided during the pre-trial investigation and court hearing. The court also took into account the prolonged period of criminal prosecution (over 3.5 years).
Case No. 824/45/24 dated 31/10/2024
The court rejected the debtor’s arguments that the ongoing bankruptcy procedure of the claimant in Romania prevents the recognition of the arbitral award. The court noted that the legislation does not provide for such restrictions, and the list of grounds for refusing to recognize an arbitral award is exhaustive. The court also did not find violations of Ukraine’s public order, as the decision concerns a private law dispute and does not affect fundamental principles.Case Law Digest: Legal Precedents and Court Decisions
Case No. 922/813/21 dated 16/10/2024:
The appellate court recognized that the prosecutor had the right to independently file a lawsuit in the state’s interests, as the Kharkiv City Council, as an authority authorized to protect community interests, had itself violated these interests by choosing an illegal privatization method through tenant purchase without a competitive process. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting that when a local self-government body acts contrary to the law and people’s interests, the prosecutor has the right to file a lawsuit independently, and such a body acquires the status of a defendant.
Case No. 912/3258/21 dated 29/10/2024:
When rendering a decision, the court was guided by the principle that legal assistance costs must be proportionate to the case’s complexity, the lawyer’s time spent, and the volume of services provided. The court considered that the case was not complex, as it concerned a typical dispute about contractual obligations. The court also noted that it has the right to independently assess the reasonableness and justification of claimed lawyer expenses, even if the opposing party did not request their reduction.
Case No. 916/3599/23 dated 29/10/2024:
The subject of the dispute was invalidating the landlord’s unilateral termination of a non-residential premises lease agreement and related claims. The appellate court, while canceling the first instance court’s decision, proceeded from the fact that the tenant had not paid rent for more than three consecutive months (from 24.01.2022 to 23.01.2023), which, according to Article 782 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, gave the landlord the right to unilateral contract termination. The court noted that the annual rent payment procedure specified in the contract does not deprive the landlord of this right, as the law does not contain requirements for specifically monthly payments. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, confirming the legitimacy of the lease agreement’s unilateral termination due to prolonged non-payment by the tenant.
Case No. 873/103/24 dated 29/10/2024:
The subject of the dispute was issuing an order for compulsory enforcement of an arbitration court decision on collecting penalty sanctions under a supply agreement. The first instance court refused to issue the order, believing that the new creditor (LLC “Company “NOTAPS”) did not acquire the right to appeal to the arbitration court, as only the right to claim penalty sanctions, not the main debt, was assigned. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the law does not prohibit assigning claims only for penalty sanctions, and the validity of the assignment agreement was not disputed. The court also established the absence of legal grounds for refusing to issue an order to enforce the arbitration court’s decision.Canceled the ruling of the court of first instance and issued an order for forced execution of the arbitration court’s decision to recover from the debtor in favor of the new creditor 4,217.37 UAH in penalty sanctions and 143.26 UAH in court costs.
Case No. 910/8328/23 (757/51177/21-ц) dated 22/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the contract was signed by a person (PERSON_1) who did not have the authority to represent the interests of the property owner – LLC “Accent-Novotel”. At the time of contract signing, PERSON_1 was not an authorized person of the company, did not have a power of attorney, and had no other documents confirming their right to act on behalf of the property owner. The court also took into account that there was no evidence of actual performance of the contract terms by the parties.
Case No. 921/227/20 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute: approval of the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance, and liquidation of LLC ‘Mriya Agroholding’ in the bankruptcy case. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the liquidator properly performed all necessary actions during the liquidation procedure – conducted an inventory of property, formed the liquidation mass, realized available assets, and made inquiries to state bodies regarding the debtor’s property. The court also took into account that the sole creditor (PJSC ‘Prominvestbank’) did not exercise its right to appeal the liquidator’s actions or independently file claims against third parties regarding subsidiary liability. The court approved the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance of LLC ‘Mriya Agroholding’, terminated the legal entity, and closed the bankruptcy proceedings.
Case No. 910/72/24 dated 24/10/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of penalties and inflation losses under a natural gas transportation agreement for 1.36 billion UAH. Main arguments of the court: 1) The court recognized that reducing the amount of penalties is the court’s right, which is exercised taking into account the specific circumstances of the case; 2) When deciding on penalty reduction, the court considered that the defendant paid the principal debt, disputed relations arose during martial law, and the financial condition of both parties; 3) The court rejected the complainants’ arguments about the need to establish uniform criteria for penalty reduction, as this issue should be resolved individually in each case. Court decision: The Supreme Court closed cassation proceedings on the complaint of NAK “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and refused to satisfy the cassation complaint of LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”, leaving in force the decisions of previous instances on partial satisfaction of the claim and 50% reduction of penalties.
Case No. 906/291/22 dated 31/10/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of lawyer service expenses should be proportionate to the case complexity, time spent, volume of services provided, and the case’s significance for the party. The court considered the level of legal relationship complexity, the scope of preparation…Preparation of legal documents and participation of a representative in four court hearings. It was established that the claimed amount of 20,000 UAH is inflated and unjustified.
Case No. 910/2248/23 dated 29/10/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the letter from the AMC Branch dated 01.11.2022 is a decision to refuse consideration of the case, and the plaintiff missed the two-month preclusive term for appealing, which ended on 12.01.2023, as they applied to the court only on 13.02.2023. The court also took into account that the missed preclusive term cannot be restored, regardless of the reasons for its missed.
Case No. 917/273/20 dated 23/10/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging by the prosecutor the city council’s decision on land lease transfer and invalidation of the land lease agreement. The court established that the prosecutor has the right to file a lawsuit as an independent plaintiff when a local self-government body (in this case, the city council) itself violated state interests through its actions. The court noted that the prosecutor properly substantiated the grounds for representing state interests, explaining that the city council, which should have protected community interests, itself violated the law in disposing of the land plot. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirms the prosecutor’s right to file a lawsuit against an authority that violated the law. The Supreme Court canceled the previous instances’ decisions to leave the lawsuit without consideration and sent the case for new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 913/410/23 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of a food procurement contract and recovery of funds received under this contract due to anti-competitive coordinated actions of bidders. Main court arguments: 1) Previous instance courts incorrectly applied norms on terms of administrative and economic sanctions to legal relations regarding transaction invalidation. 2) The issue of the bidder’s intent to make a transaction contrary to state interests was not properly investigated. 3) The actual nature of disputed legal relations was not established, and not all arguments of the parties were evaluated. Court decision: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint partially satisfied, previous instance court decisions canceled, case sent for new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 922/376/18 dated 29/10/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant (KP ‘Kharkivvodokanal’) met the criteria of a 1st voltage class consumer; 2) the plaintiff (JSC ‘Kharkivoblenergo’) correctly recalculated electricity cost using tariffs for the 1st voltage class; 3) the correctness of calculations was confirmed by forensic expert opinions.
