Case No. 943/1158/22 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that JSC “Lvivgaz” proved by appropriate evidence the fact of unauthorized interference with the gas meter, in particular the presence of damage to the paint coating, cracks, scratches on mechanisms, which led to distortion of gas metering data. The consumer did not refute the fact of interference and the correctness of the calculation of additional gas volumes. The meter examination was conducted in compliance with the established procedure.
Case No. 420/31910/23 dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that although the company provided certain documents to confirm the reality of economic transactions, they did not fully refute the tax authority’s conclusion about the grounds for refusal of registration. The court also noted that the tax authority’s application for clarification of the court decision was unfounded, as the decision was clear and understandable.
Case No. 366/2440/19 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against an acquittal of a driver accused of traffic rules violation that caused bodily injuries to a cyclist. The cassation court established that the appellate court improperly considered the case, as it: did not give proper assessment to all evidence in the case; unreasonably declared key evidence inadmissible (scene inspection protocol, investigative experiment protocol, and expert opinion); refused to re-examine evidence, although it was necessary to establish the truth; did not provide comprehensive responses to the prosecutor’s arguments in the appellate complaint. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 752/19960/16 dated 15/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) from the moment of the crime (17.08.2016) to the case consideration, the statutory limitation period has expired; 2) the accused provided written consent to close the case on this ground and was aware of the legal consequences; 3) no facts of evading investigation or court or committing new crimes that could stop the limitation period were established.
Case No. 953/6275/22 dated 29/10/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) there are mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, active assistance in crime detection, volunteer activities for the Armed Forces of Ukraine); 2) no aggravating circumstances; 3) the person is a young woman, previously not convicted, officially employed. The court also took into account that the convicted person had already begun serving the sentence and was conditionally released early to serve under a contract military service.
Case No. 545/5307/22 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of dispute – obligation of JSC “Poltavaoblenergo” to restore electricity supply to a non-residential premises, which was discontinued on February 6, 2021. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff as a new owner did not fulfill the obligation to notify the system operator about the change of consumer and did not provide the necessary documents; 2) during the inspection, violations of electricity metering were detected due to the use of an “artificial zero”; 3) the plaintiff did not pay for the connection of the facility to electricity supply, which is a necessary condition for restoring electricity supply. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reject the claim.Translation of the Legal Text:
Case No. 758/3645/15-ц dated 31/10/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the borrower must repay the loan and interest for the period until the end of the loan term (28.12.2012); 2) the temporary occupation of Crimea does not exempt the borrower from the obligation to repay the debt that arose before the occupation; 3) the illegal seizure of the mortgage object by the occupation authorities does not terminate the main obligation under the loan agreement.
Case No. 334/2520/22 dated 29/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s verdict regarding the imposition of a more severe additional punishment and increase in the amount of moral compensation in a case of traffic rules violation. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the minimum additional punishment imposed by the court of first instance did not correspond to the severity of the committed offense and its consequences; 2) when determining the amount of moral compensation, it was necessary to more fully take into account the mental suffering of the victim and the loss of a full life; 3) increasing the period of deprivation of the right to drive vehicles to 3 years and the amount of moral damage compensation to 78,856.54 UAH corresponds to the principles of fairness and reasonableness. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 440/16492/23 dated 05/11/2024
The appellate court returned the complaint, considering that the representative of the tax authority could not act in self-representation due to existing limitations of their powers in the Unified State Register. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that restrictions on powers in the Unified State Register do not negate the possibility of self-representation if the person is properly authorized in accordance with the law, statute, or employment contract. To confirm powers, the court may only require documents specified in Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 340/2456/23 dated 05/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for appealing to the court, which began from the moment of funds being returned from their account (September 8, 2022). At the same time, the plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of valid reasons for missing the term – they were aware of the consideration of the issue regarding the nullity of the transaction but did not take active steps to protect their rights, in particular, did not make inquiries to the Guarantee Fund.
Case No. 354/717/14-ц dated 30/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of filing the lawsuit in 2014-2015, the then-current Law of Ukraine “On Prosecution” did not contain prohibitions or restrictions on a prosecutor representing the interests of the state in the person of state institutions, including environmental protection agencies. The prosecutor had the right to independently determine what constituted a violation of state interests and substantiate the need for their protection. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in 2024 confirmed the possibility of such representation.
Case No. 752/13313/23 dated 31/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff cannot be considered a consumer within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Protection”, since the defendant (JSC “ZNVKIF “Walls Capital”) is not an owner, executor of works, or service provider, but only a party to a preliminary agreement on intentions to conclude a future real estate purchase and sale agreement. Therefore, the provisions of consumer protection legislation do not apply to the plaintiff.The privilege regarding exemption from court fee is not applicable. Since the plaintiff did not pay the court fee within the court-established timeframe, the statement of claim was rightfully left without consideration.
Case No. 761/31747/16-ц dated 31/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed apartment was purchased with credit funds and is subject to a mortgage, which excludes the possibility of its acquisition by the plaintiff with personal funds. Moreover, the lawsuit was filed after a decision was made to recover debt under the credit agreement, which indicates the plaintiff’s bad faith and attempt to avoid debt repayment. Regarding the vehicle – the bank did not challenge the first instance court’s decision in this part.
Case No. 211/7082/19 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the actions of the state executor and cancellation of resolutions adopted within the enforcement proceedings regarding the collection of court fees.
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly renewed the term for appeal after the expiration of a one-year period. According to the law, after the expiration of a year from the date of drafting the full text of the court decision, the appellate court must refuse to open proceedings regardless of the reasons for missing the term. Exceptions are possible only in two cases: if the appeal is filed by a person not notified about the case consideration, or if the term was missed due to force majeure circumstances. The appellate court did not verify the presence of these exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and sent the case for a new review from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 758/9035/23 dated 05/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff purchased a vehicle at electronic auctions but did not re-register it within the legally established 10-day period. As a result, the vehicle remained registered with the previous owner (PE ‘Our Ukraine’) and was arrested as the debtor’s property. The court recognized that the dispute arose due to the plaintiff’s incorrect actions, who failed to fulfill her obligation to timely re-register the vehicle.
Case No. 712/277/23 dated 04/11/2024
The court established that there is a long-standing family conflict between mother and son regarding the use of a one-room apartment due to minimal personal space. Although the mother repeatedly approached the police with complaints about domestic violence, the court did not find sufficient evidence of systematic violation of cohabitation rules. According to neighbors’ testimonies, the son is characterized positively, and conflicts are often provoked by the mother herself. Evicting the son without providing alternative housing would be a disproportionate interference with his right to housing under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case No. 201/4544/22 dated 30/10/2024
In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the defendant’s guilt is confirmed by a set of appropriate and admissible evidence: victim and witness testimonies, forensic expert conclusions, surveillance camera recordings, and investigation protocols. The court rejected the defense’s version of self-defense, as the case materials do not contain evidence of a real threat from the victim. The court also found the defense’s arguments about procedural violations during investigative actions and identifying the victim to be unfounded.Case No. 619/6002/21 dated 31/10/2024
The cassation instance court noted that the cancellation of the decision on state registration of property ownership for the disputed real estate was an appropriate and effective method of protecting the plaintiff’s violated rights. The appellate court erroneously refused to satisfy the claim on the grounds of choosing an inappropriate method of rights protection, without providing an assessment of the parties’ arguments regarding compliance with legal requirements in state property registration and the existence of grounds for declaring the disputed transactions invalid.
Case No. 359/415/18 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of State Geocadaster orders and decisions on state registration of ownership rights to 23 forestry land plots. The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor has the right to file a lawsuit in the interests of the state as an independent plaintiff, identifying the authority whose decision is being challenged as the defendant. In this case, the actual plaintiff is the state, not the relevant body or prosecutor. The courts of previous instances erroneously believed that the prosecutor had to represent the interests of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, since the area of each disputed plot is less than 1 hectare. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the previous instance courts on leaving the claim without consideration and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 242/3831/19 dated 31/10/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the amount of legal assistance expenses must be proportionate to the complexity of the case, the time spent by the lawyer, the volume of services provided, and the significance of the case for the party. The court took into account that part of the claimed services (preparation of objections and motions) are not subject to reimbursement, as their satisfaction was refused, and other services (familiarization with materials, document analysis) are part of preparing a response to the cassation complaint.
Case No. 689/1646/23 dated 23/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that paragraph 36 of the lease agreement provided for the possibility of its termination in case of transfer of land ownership to another person. Since the plaintiff became the new owner of the land plot based on a donation agreement and filed a claim for lease termination, and the defendant did not provide proper evidence of the plaintiff’s bad faith actions, the court found the claims justified. The lessee’s arguments about the bad faith of the owner’s actions were recognized as mere assumptions.
Case No. 607/9925/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute: invalidation of ownership certificates for an apartment and garage acquired during marriage through shared construction participation.
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the disputed property was acquired during the marriage and is joint marital property. Since the apartment has already been sold to a third party, and a separate court proceeding on marital property division is ongoing regarding the garage, the plaintiff’s chosen method of rights protection (invalidation of establishing documents) is not effective and will not lead to restoration of their rights. The plaintiff has the opportunity to protect their rights by obtaining compensation for their share of the property within the marital property division case.
The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff’s chosen method of rights protection is not effective and would require additional court appeals.
Case No. 643/8610/23 dated 30/10/2024
The court noted that…
(Note: The last case appears to be cut off mid-sentence)Accusation of plagiarism is a form of copyright infringement, as it denies the creator’s right. According to the expert opinion, the plaintiff’s book does not contain plagiarism. The court indicated that the requirement to prohibit the dissemination of false information on the Internet is an appropriate method of protecting the violated right, as the defendant is not deprived of the opportunity to re-disseminate such accusations.
Case No. 202/4444/20 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of dispute – securing a claim for debt recovery by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s vehicles. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) there is a real threat of non-execution of a future court decision without taking interim measures; 2) the chosen interim measure (prohibition of vehicle alienation) is proportionate to the claimed debt recovery requirements; 3) such a measure does not create unjustified restrictions for the defendant, as it does not deprive him of the right to use the property. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court on imposing an arrest on the defendant’s vehicles as an interim measure.
Case No. 260/8700/23 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the actions of the Kholmkiv Village Council regarding improper governance in refusing to provide a land plot to the plaintiff during 2014-2021. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for filing a lawsuit, which should have been calculated from November 2021, when the last refusal to provide a land plot occurred. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any valid reasons for missing the term that would be objectively insurmountable and independent of his will. The fact that the plaintiff initially filed a civil lawsuit is not a valid reason, as he could have simultaneously filed a lawsuit in the administrative court. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the decisions of the previous instance courts on leaving the claim without consideration unchanged.
Case No. 380/22018/23 dated 05/11/2024
The cassation instance court noted that the previous instance courts did not provide proper legal assessment of each violation in the context of each disputed tax notification-decision. The courts did not clarify the presence of violations of Article 200 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which was the basis for five out of six challenged tax notification-decisions. The decision regarding penalties for one of the tax notification-decisions also remained unclear.
Case No. 640/12384/21 dated 30/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that after the cancellation of the court decision on the basis of which the enforcement proceedings were opened, the debtor lost his status, and therefore there were no legal grounds for determining and recovering enforcement proceedings expenses from him. Moreover, a resolution on determining the amount of additional expenses can only be issued at the stage of distribution of funds recovered from the debtor, which was not the case here.
Case No. 214/82/17 dated 31/10/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly returned the appellate complaint due to non-payment of court fees, as the applicant, as a person with disability due to war, is exempt from payment according to paragraph 8, part 1, Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees”. Moreover, according to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 13.05.2024, court fees are not levied when appealing…Case No. 442/2548/16-c dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not involve PERSON_2 as a co-defendant, who is the owner of 5/6 parts of the disputed apartment and whose rights and interests are directly affected by the claims. The court noted that failure to involve a person as a co-defendant in the presence of mandatory procedural co-participation is grounds for dismissing the claim due to an improper subject composition. At the same time, the status of a third party in which PERSON_2 participated in the case is not sufficient, as a third party has limited procedural capabilities and is not a party to the dispute.
Case No. 454/3367/23 dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the mere fact of improper consideration of the application cannot be a basis for compensation for moral damages, as the plaintiff’s rights were restored in the manner prescribed by law – the investigating judge ordered the entry of information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, which was executed. Moreover, the plaintiff did not prove the fact of moral damage caused to him or the causal relationship between the actions of the State Bureau of Investigations and the occurrence of such damage.
Case No. 442/4654/23 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging by the prosecutor court decisions regarding the qualification of the defendant’s actions under articles on theft and robbery. The court was guided by the fact that criminal proceedings for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) are subject to closure. Regarding robbery (Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code), the court excluded the qualifying feature of ‘repetition’ since the theft episode was excluded. The court also excluded references to sentencing for a set of crimes, as only one crime remained. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, modifying previous court decisions and sentencing to 4 years of imprisonment with probation for robbery.
Case No. 175/560/19 dated 30/10/2024
The cassation instance court established that the claim to declare the state act invalid is not an appropriate method of protecting the violated right, as it will not restore the rights of ST “Slavutych” as a land user. The Supreme Court noted that a decision of a state authority or local self-government body, if it does not comply with the law, does not entail legal consequences, and declaring a state act invalid is not necessary to resolve the issue of ownership of the land plot. The plaintiff’s choice of an inappropriate method of protecting their rights is an independent basis for dismissing the claim.
Case No. 136/1907/22 dated 31/10/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the sole reason for the absence of notarization of the contract was the lack of funds in the bankrupt enterprise; 2) the plaintiff, as an interested party, was not deprived of the opportunity to independently pay for notary services; 3) no evidence was provided of the liquidator’s evasion from notarizing the contract. In addition, the court established suspicious circumstances of the auction, where the liquidator simultaneously acted as both the customer and the organizer of the auction.
Case No. 734/1740/22 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Challenging the court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for attempted murder with extreme cruelty, illegal entry into housing, and attempted intentional destruction of property by arson. The court in making its decision was guided…Case No. 204/1877/22 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging a Court Verdict Regarding Conviction for Illegal Acquisition, Storage, and Transportation of Narcotic Substances with Intent to Sell
The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) a significant quantity of narcotic and psychotropic substances, which were packaged, was seized from the convicted person; 2) the convicted person’s fingerprints were found on the drug packets; 3) witness testimonies confirmed that the drug packet belonged to the defendant; 4) the convicted person is not a drug-dependent individual and could not have been storing such a quantity of drugs for personal use.
The Supreme Court left the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, only excluding from the motivational part the indication that cannabis is an especially dangerous narcotic substance, due to changes in legislation.
Case No. 174/143/21 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s Cassation Appeal Regarding Release from Punishment for Minor Bodily Injuries Due to Expiration of Statute of Limitations
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of consideration in the appellate instance, the three-year statute of limitations for criminal liability for a criminal offense (Part 2, Article 125 of the Criminal Code) had expired. Since the accused denied guilt and did not file petitions for release from criminal liability, the court had to release him from the assigned punishment under this article. The court also indicated the need to exclude references to punishment for a combination of crimes.
The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, released the convicted person from punishment under Part 2, Article 125 of the Criminal Code due to expiration of statute of limitations, and maintained the 6-year imprisonment sentence under Part 1, Article 121 of the Criminal Code.
Case No. 520/8417/22 dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of the inspection, a moratorium on conducting documentary inspections was in effect according to paragraph 52-2 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which was introduced due to quarantine restrictions. Although the Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 89 allowed certain inspections, changes to the Tax Code could only be made by law, therefore the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution could not cancel the moratorium.
Case No. 643/2563/23 dated 31/10/2024
The court established that the disputed apartment was removed from the plaintiffs’ possession against their will through a series of invalid transactions. In particular, the purchase and sale agreement was executed based on a power of attorney that did not come into effect, and subsequent owners did not have the right to dispose of the property. Moreover, at the time of transfer to the last acquirer – LLC “Real Estate Agency ‘Estate-Service'” – the property was under arrest. The court also rejected the respondent’s objections regarding the statute of limitations, as the plaintiffs became aware of theViolation of their rights only in 2018.
Case No. 761/8718/21 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove ownership of the disputed apartment or any other property right to it. Mere registration of residence does not grant the right to claim property recovery. The right to a vindication claim belongs to the property owner or a person to whom the property belonged on the basis of law or contract.
Case No. 521/1527/23 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that returning the executive document to the claimant does not mean the end of enforcement proceedings and does not automatically result in lifting the property seizure. Since the enforcement proceedings were not completed, but only the executive document was returned to the claimant, who retains the right to resubmit it for execution, there are no legal grounds for lifting the seizure. The court also took into account the lack of evidence of debt repayment by the debtor.
Case No. 504/917/19 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of the state act for private land ownership and recovery of land plots from illegal possession. The court established that the plaintiff PERSON_1 received the land plot in ownership in 1996, but in 2002 a state act for the same plot was issued to another person (PERSON_3), who later sold it to PERSON_2. Although the plaintiff proved her initial ownership right to the plot, the court drew attention to her missed statute of limitations, as she could have learned about the rights violation as early as 2002 but filed a lawsuit only in 2019. The court also emphasized that an owner as a good manager must know and care about their property. The Supreme Court rejected the claim due to missed statute of limitations.
Case No. 569/302/21 dated 22/10/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the refusal of the appellate court to restore the term for appealing the ruling on land plot seizure. The court was guided by the fact that when a investigating judge’s ruling is issued without summoning a person, the term for appealing should be calculated from the day of receiving a copy of the court decision. The appellate court did not consider that the property owner received a copy of the ruling only on March 6, 2024, and immediately appealed it, instead mistakenly believing that the owner knew about the decision earlier. The appellate court also did not specify when exactly the appeal term started and ended. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for new consideration.
Case No. 440/16492/23 dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority missed the term for submitting a repeated appeal complaint (21 days after receiving the ruling on returning the first complaint), did not provide proper evidence of valid reasons for missing the term, and references to martial law and air raids cannot be a sufficient basis, as these circumstances were not permanent. The court also considered that process participants must conscientiously exercise procedural rights and comply with established terms.
Case No. 580/90/23 dated 05/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging a tax notification-decision on accruing penalties for violating settlement terms in foreign economic activity. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) For legitimate offsetting of counterclaims, they must be homogeneous and1) The requirements must be valid, and the term of their performance must have arrived; 2) When offsetting requirements for foreign economic operations, it is necessary to verify that this does not harm Ukraine’s export-import balance; 3) The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate primary documents and did not establish all essential circumstances of the case regarding the legitimacy of the mutual offset.
The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of previous instance courts and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to fully clarify all circumstances.
Case No. 368/383/22 dated 31/10/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove by proper and sufficient evidence the fact of living together with the testator. Mere registration at the same address, episodic assistance to the testator, and carrying out repairs in the house do not indicate the existence of a shared household, budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent to family members. The court also took into account that the testator previously filed a lawsuit to declare the plaintiff as having lost the right to use the house.
Case No. 464/2225/22 dated 04/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is invalidation of marriage and recognition of ownership of 6/8 parts of an apartment as inheritance after the husband’s death. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not involve all heirs, including the testator’s minor children, who are automatically considered to have accepted the inheritance by law. Since the dispute concerns their rights and interests, they should have been involved as co-defendants. Improper subject composition of case participants is an independent basis for rejecting the claim, as the plaintiff did not file motions to involve all heirs. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower instance courts to reject the claim.
Case No. 686/14731/21 dated 05/11/2024
The court established that the disputed land plot was illegally transferred to private ownership, as it overlaps with unclaimed land shares of the former collective agricultural enterprise and should have been transferred to communal ownership. The State Geocadaster did not have the right to dispose of this land after January 1, 2019, when such lands were recognized as the property of territorial communities. Since the plot was alienated from the owner’s possession against their will, there are grounds for its recovery from a good faith acquirer.
Case No. 756/1488/19 dated 05/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the applicant missed the 30-day term for filing an application to review a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, which began from the moment she learned about such circumstances (June 25, 2021). The applicant filed the application only on May 24, 2024, and did not attach a motion to restore the missed term. The court noted that the term for filing such an application can be restored only if there are valid reasons for its missed term, which the person must state.
Case No. 751/3148/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of closing criminal proceedings due to the expiration of pre-trial investigation terms. The court was guided by the fact that in criminal proceedings entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations before March 16, 2018, as well as in those proceedings that were combined or separated from others, where the start of pre-trial investigation occurred before the specified date, extending pre-trial investigation terms belongs to the competence of the respective prosecutor.
