Case No. 943/1158/22 dated 04/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the gas supply company provided proper evidence of unauthorized interference with the gas meter (damage to paint coating, cracks, scratches on mechanisms), which led to distortion of accounting data. The consumer did not refute the fact of interference and the legitimacy of the calculated amount. The company’s actions regarding inspection, meter expertise, and calculation of unaccounted gas costs were in compliance with legislative requirements.
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 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 – challenging an acquittal of a driver accused of traffic rule violation resulting in bodily injuries to a cyclist. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly examined the case because: it did not properly assess all evidence in the case; unreasonably declared key evidence inadmissible (crime scene inspection protocol, investigative experiment protocol, and expert conclusion); refused to re-examine evidence, although this was necessary to establish the truth; did not provide comprehensive responses to the prosecutor’s arguments in the appeal. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 752/19960/16 dated 15/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the statutory limitation period has passed from the moment of crime commission (17.08.2016) until case consideration; 2) the accused provided written consent to case closure on this basis and was aware of legal consequences; 3) no facts of investigation or court evasion or new crime commission were established that could interrupt the limitation period.
Case No. 953/6275/22 dated 29/10/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by: 1) presence of mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, active assistance in crime disclosure, volunteer activities for Armed Forces); 2) absence of aggravating circumstances; 3) the convicted person’s profile (young age, official employment, no prior convictions) allows application of a milder punishment under Article 69 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, the court considered the increased social danger of the act and found no grounds for exemption from punishment.
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 consumer change and did not provide necessary documents; 2) during inspection, electricity accounting violations were discovered through use of an “artificial zero”; 3) the plaintiff did not pay for connection services to the electricity supply, which is a necessary condition for electricity supply restoration.The Court left the decision of the appellate court on the refusal to satisfy the claim unchanged.
Case No. 758/3645/15-ц dated 31/10/2024
The court in making its decision 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 moral compensation in a case of traffic rules violation. The court in making its decision 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 the defense counsel’s cassation complaint was not satisfied.
Case No. 440/16492/23 dated 05/11/2024
The cassation instance court considered the issue of the legitimacy of returning the tax authority’s appellate complaint because it was signed by a person with limited powers according to the extract from the Unified State Register. The Supreme Court pointed out that the limitations of a person’s powers in the Unified State Register do not deprive them of the ability to act in the procedure of self-representation on behalf of a legal entity if they are properly authorized to do so according to the law, statute, or employment contract.
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 knew about the consideration of the issue regarding the nullity of the transaction but did not take active actions 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 claim in 2014-2015, the then-current Law of Ukraine “On Prosecution” did not contain prohibitions or restrictions on the prosecutor’s representation of state interests on behalf of state institutions, including environmental protection. 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 plaintiff is not entitled to the exemption from court fee payment. 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 purchase by the plaintiff with personal funds. Moreover, the plaintiff previously confirmed that the apartment belongs to the spouses as joint common property when providing consent for the mortgage. The court also took into account that the claim was filed after the decision to recover the credit debt was made, which indicates the plaintiff’s bad faith and attempt to avoid debt repayment.
Case No. 211/7082/19 dated 05/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the actions of the state executor and canceling the resolutions adopted within the enforcement proceedings regarding the collection of court fees. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly renewed the appeal period after the expiration of the annual term. 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 ‘Nasha Ukraina’) and was seized as the debtor’s property. The court recognized that the dispute arose due to the plaintiff’s incorrect actions, who failed to fulfill the obligation of timely re-registration of the vehicle.
Case No. 712/277/23 dated 04/11/2024
The court established that there is a long-standing family conflict between the 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 of 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 fully proven by a set of appropriate and admissible evidence: victim and witness testimonies, forensic expert conclusions, video recordings from surveillance cameras confirming the attack and infliction of bodily injuries. 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 evidence collection 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 rights to 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
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. At the same time, the courts of previous instances incorrectly believed that the prosecutor should represent the interests of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, since the area of each disputed plot is less than 1 hectare.
Case No. 242/3831/19 dated 31/10/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of legal assistance expenses should 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 the main service – preparation of a response to the cassation complaint.
Case No. 689/1646/23 dated 23/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) clause 36 of the lease agreement provided for the possibility of termination when the ownership of the land plot passes to another person; 2) the plaintiff became the new owner of the plot based on a donation agreement from his grandmother; 3) the new owner sent a demand to the lessee to terminate the lease agreement. The lessee’s arguments about the plaintiff’s bad faith actions were rejected by the court as unfounded assumptions.
Case No. 607/9925/23 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute: invalidation of ownership certificates for an apartment and garage acquired during marriage through shared construction participation. When rendering the decision, the court 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 division of marital property 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 his rights. The plaintiff has the opportunity to protect his rights by obtaining compensation for the value of his share of the property within the case on division of marital property. 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 an accusation of plagiarism is a form of copyright infringement of a bona fide creator. According to the expert’s conclusion, the plaintiff’s disputed work is not a full or partial reproduction of the text and illustrations from the respondent’s work. The court also indicated that the requirement to prohibit the dissemination of inaccurate information on the Internet is appropriate.Case No. 202/4444/20 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – securing a claim for debt recovery by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s vehicles. The court, when rendering the decision, 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 alienation of vehicles) 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 the 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 instances on leaving the lawsuit 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 penalty sanctions 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 charged when appealing decisions of a state executor.
Case No. 442/2548/16-ц 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 of the disputed apartment and whose rights and interests are directly affected by the claimHere is the translation:
The court noted that failure to involve a person as a co-defendant in the case, given the mandatory procedural co-participation, is grounds for rejecting the claim due to an improper subject composition. In this case, 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 in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the mere fact of improper consideration of the application cannot be a basis for compensation of moral damages, since 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 State Bureau of Investigation officials and the occurrence of damage.
Case No. 442/4654/23 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal of 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 combination of crimes, as only one crime remained. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, 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 court of cassation instance established that the claim to declare a 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 a land plot. The plaintiff’s choice of an inappropriate method of protecting their rights is an independent basis for rejecting the claim.
Case No. 136/1907/22 dated 31/10/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the sole reason for the absence of notarial certification of the contract was the seller’s lack of funds; 2) the buyer was not deprived of the opportunity to independently pay for notary services; 3) there is no evidence of the seller’s evasion of notarial certification of the contract; 4) the lack of funds in itself is not a basis for recognizing the contract as valid in court.
Case No. 734/1740/22 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute: Appeal of a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for attempted murder with extreme cruelty, illegal entry into a dwelling, and attempted intentional destruction of property by arson. The court in rendering its decision was guided by the following arguments: 1) The convict’s guilt is proven by the victim’s testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence confirming that he entered the victim’s house, doused her with gasoline, and attempted to set her on fire; 2) The method of committing the crime (attempting to burn a living person) indicates the presence of direct intent to murder with extreme cruelty; 3) The crime was not brought to completion due to…Due to independent circumstances – matches did not light up, the victim extinguished the ignited film, and the convicted person fled upon seeing the police. The Supreme Court left unchanged the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, which found the convicted person guilty and sentenced them to 10 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 204/1877/22 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the 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 packaged narcotic and psychotropic substances was seized from the convicted person; 2) the convicted person’s fingerprints were found on the drug packets; 3) witnesses confirmed that the drug packet belonged to the defendant; 4) the convicted person is not a drug-dependent individual and could not have stored such a quantity of drugs for personal use. The Supreme Court left the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, only excluding from the reasoning part the indication that cannabis is an especially dangerous narcotic substance, as its status has changed according to a new law.
Case No. 174/143/21 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation appeal regarding the release of the convicted person from punishment for minor bodily injuries due to statute of limitations expiration. The court was guided by the fact that at the time of appellate instance review, the 3-year statute of limitations for criminal liability for a criminal offense (Part 2, Article 125 of the Criminal Code) had passed. Since the defendant denied guilt and did not file petitions for release from criminal liability, the court had to release them 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 statute of limitations, and left the punishment of 6 years of imprisonment 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 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 alienated from the plaintiffs’ possession against their will through invalid purchase and exchange agreements. At the time of transfer to the authorized capital of LLC “Real Estate Agency ‘Estate-Service'”, the property was under arrest. The court also rejected the respondent’s objections regarding statute of limitations expiration, as the plaintiffs learned about the violation of their rights only in 2018, and the terms were extended due to quarantine and martial law.
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 real 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 whomProperty 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 seizure of property. Since the enforcement proceedings were not completed, but only the executive document was returned to the claimant, who retains the right to re-submit it for execution, there are no legal grounds for lifting the seizure. The court also took into account the absence of evidence of the debtor repaying the debt.
Case No. 504/917/19 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of the state act for the right of private ownership of land and recovery of land plots from illegal possession. The court established that the plaintiff PERSON_1 received the land plot into 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 violation of her right back in 2002, but applied to the court only in 2019. The court also emphasized that an owner as a good manager must know and take care of their property. The Supreme Court refused to satisfy 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 renew the term for appealing the ruling on seizure of a land plot. The court was guided by the fact that when a investigating judge’s ruling is issued without summoning a person, the term for appellate appeal should be calculated from the day of receiving a copy of the court decision. The appellate court did not take into account 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 exactly when the appeal term started and ended. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for new consideration to make a lawful decision taking into account the actual date of receiving a copy of the challenged ruling.
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 appellate 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 raid alerts cannot be a sufficient basis, as these circumstances were not permanent. The court also took into account that process participants must conscientiously use 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) It was not properly investigated whether there was indeed a set-off of counter-homogeneous claims between the parties; 2) It was not verified whether the conditions for such set-off were met – counter-nature, homogeneity of claims, and the onset of their execution term; 3) It was not clarified whether the change of debtor/creditor for monetary claims would harm Ukraine’s export-import balance. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous courts.Here is the translation:
instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 368/383/22 dated 31/10/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove by proper and sufficient evidence the fact of living together with the testator for five years prior to the opening of the inheritance. 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. Moreover, the court took into account that the testator previously filed a lawsuit seeking to declare the plaintiff as having lost the right to use the house.
Case No. 464/2225/22 dated 04/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of marriage and recognition of ownership rights to 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 in the case, 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 dismissing the claim, as the plaintiff did not file motions to involve all heirs. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts to deny 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 had no 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, the law allows its recovery even 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 period for filing an application to review a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, which began from the moment she learned of such circumstances (June 25, 2021). Meanwhile, the applicant filed the application only on May 24, 2024, and did not attach a motion to restore the missed period. The court noted that the term for filing such an application can be restored only if there are valid reasons for its missed period, which the person must state.
Case No. 751/3148/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of closing a criminal proceeding in connection with 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 the pre-trial investigation occurred before the specified date, extending pre-trial investigation terms falls within the competence of the respective level prosecutor. The courts of first and appellate instances did not take this into account and incorrectly applied procedural law norms regarding the procedure for extending pre-trial investigation terms. The appellate instance court also did not provide proper assessment of the Deputy Prosecutor General’s orders on extending pre-trial
