Case No. 201/9248/20 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute: Appealing a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for murdering a law enforcement officer, attempted murder of another police officer, and illegal handling of a weapon. Main Court Arguments: The court established that the convicted person, being a former law enforcement officer, intentionally shot and killed one police officer and attempted to kill another while they were lawfully performing their official duties. His actions were purposeful and deliberate, confirmed by the nature of the injuries, number of shots, and behavior after the crime. The court also took into account the extremely high degree of public danger of the committed crimes, the absence of genuine remorse, and the person’s state of alcohol intoxication. Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the first instance verdict of life imprisonment, recognizing it as legal and substantiated.
Case No. 174/143/21 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s appeal against the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a person for causing grievous bodily harm and minor bodily injuries. The court was guided by provisions on statutes of limitations for criminal liability, determining that for minor bodily injuries (Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code), the statute of limitations had expired, therefore the person should be released from punishment under this article. The court also excluded the application of rules for sentencing for a set of crimes, as punishment remained only for one crime. As a result of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, modifying previous court decisions and imposing a final punishment of 6 years of imprisonment only for causing grievous bodily harm.
Case No. 394/283/23 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Insurance company’s cassation appeal regarding the amount of material damage compensation for a car damaged in a traffic accident. The court was guided by the following: 1) the amount of damage is confirmed by an expert opinion and amounts to 157,044.65 UAH, which does not exceed the insurer’s liability limit under the policy (160,000 UAH); 2) the car is recognized as physically destroyed, as its repair is economically unjustified – the repair cost (960,735.32 UAH) significantly exceeds the car’s value before the accident (159,544.65 UAH); 3) according to the Supreme Court practice, the remains of a destroyed vehicle must be transferred to the insurance company. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions to recover 157,044.65 UAH from the insurance company in favor of the victim and transfer the damaged car’s remains to the insurance company’s ownership.
Case No. 396/1750/15-k dated 28/10/2024
The cassation instance court established that the lower instance courts’ conclusions about the convicted person’s guilt are based on properly investigated evidence – victim and witness testimonies, expert conclusions, and other case materials. The courts provided proper assessment of all evidence in their totality, ensured equal opportunities for parties to prove their position, and adhered to the principle of adversarial proceedings. The defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of certain evidence and incompleteness of the judicial review were recognized as unfounded.
Case No. 394/283/23 dated 30/10/2024
Subject of Dispute – Cassation appeal of the verdict and appellate court ruling regarding a person convicted of violating traffic safety rules (Part 3 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower instance courts and found no grounds for satisfaction.Dismissal of Cassation Appeal by Insurance Company. The Supreme Court Upheld Previous Instance Court Decisions and Rejected the Cassation Appeal of the ‘Unika’ Insurance Company Representative.
Case No. 320/20851/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Imposing Penalty Sanctions. The Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff missed the one-month term for appealing the tax notification-decision, which is calculated from the date of receiving the STS decision following administrative appeal. The Court noted that the new tax notification-decision was merely a formalization of the results of administrative appeal of the previous decision, therefore the appeal term is calculated from the moment of receiving the STS decision, not from the date of receiving the new tax notification-decision. The Court left the statement of claim without consideration due to missing the term for court appeal, as the plaintiff did not request restoration of the missed term and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for its missed.
Case No. 826/6964/14 dated 06/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that: 1) filing an application for offsetting overpaid funds does not exempt from the obligation to timely pay taxes, as the controlling body has 20 days to review such an application; 2) the bank’s refusal to accept a payment order cannot be considered the bank’s fault, as such refusal was provided for in the banking service agreement and was not challenged by the plaintiff; 3) the plaintiff did not challenge the inaction of the tax authority regarding non-consideration of his applications for offsetting funds.
Case No. 910/3498/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the Decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by ‘Volynhaz’ Company. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court regarding the adopted decision. However, from the available text, it is evident that the case was considered in the court of first instance and the appellate court, after which ‘Volynhaz’ filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of ‘Volynhaz’ and left the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 640/5670/21 dated 07/11/2024
The Court established that the NGO ‘Association of Banking Valuation Specialists of Ukraine’ did not meet the legal requirements for quantitative composition – out of 322 organization members, only 265 carried out valuation activities as part of valuation activity entities, whereas the law required at least 290 such members (90% of the total number). The court also recognized that the 21-day inspection period applies only to the initial acquisition of self-regulatory organization status, not to the inspection of an already existing organization.
Case No. 813/2807/17 dated 06/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that: 1) economic transactions between the plaintiff and the contractor are confirmed by appropriate primary documents; 2) purchased works/services were actually used by the plaintiff in economic activity; 3) violation of tax discipline by the contractor cannot be a basis for depriving the taxpayer of the right to tax credit if their awareness of the contractor’s unlawful actions is not proven.
Case No. 420/17639/22 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Civil Servant Challenging Orders on Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions and Dismissal due to Negative Evaluation of Official Performance. The Court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff as a department head improperly performed her official duties regarding department work organization and control…1) The court rejected the claim, finding both the disciplinary penalty and the dismissal of the plaintiff lawful.
2) The court was guided by the fact that according to paragraph 4 of part 1 of Article 23 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization”, the right to deferment is granted to persons who have three or more children under 18 years old. Since the plaintiff has only two children under 18, and the third child has already reached adulthood, there are no grounds for deferment. The court also noted that the status of a large family and the obligation to support an adult child who is studying is not a basis for deferment.
3) According to the Procedure for Payment of Monetary Allowance to Servicemen No. 260, when calculating health improvement assistance, remunerations, including additional remuneration established by CMU Resolution No. 168, are not taken into account. By delegating to the Cabinet of Ministers the right to determine monetary allowance amounts, and to the Minister of Defense – the procedure for its payment, the legislator established a hierarchy for determining the components of monetary allowance when calculating individual payments.
4) The appellate court, which was supported by the Supreme Court, decided that the tax audit was conducted in violation of the moratorium on inspections during quarantine, established by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court noted that such an audit should not have taken place by law, and therefore its results cannot be the basis for issuing tax notifications-decisions. The CMU resolution referenced by the tax authority could not cancel the moratorium established by the Tax Code.
5) The court was guided by the fact that the city council’s decision to approve a new standard monetary valuation of lands was recognized as unlawful and invalid, as it was not properly published. Moreover, the court took into account that changing the standard monetary valuation of land cannot automatically change the rent amount without amending the lease agreement.
6) Subject of dispute: payment of additional monetary reward to a State Border Guard Service serviceman of up to 100,000 UAH for direct participation in combat operations.
Main arguments of the court:
1) Orders of the State Border Guard Service Administration regarding the procedure for reward payment are subject to application, even if they have not passed state registration;
2) To receive increased remuneration, it is not enough to simply be in the combat area – one must documentarily confirm direct participation in combat operations;
3) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate all available evidence regarding the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations.
Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instance courts and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of evidence.1) A multi-apartment house contradicts the intended purpose of the land plot designated for individual residential construction; 2) construction does not comply with state building regulations regarding distances from house walls to plot boundaries; 3) the city council has legal powers to cancel acts of its executive bodies if they are adopted in violation of legislation.
Case No. 460/4832/21 dated 06/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the city council has legal powers to cancel acts of its subordinate bodies if they are adopted in violation of legislation; 2) development intentions did not meet state building regulations, as a blocked multi-apartment house was planned for a land plot intended for individual residential construction; 3) the construction passport could not expire before the completion of all construction works.
Case No. 466/12606/21 dated 14/08/2024
The court of first instance satisfied the claim to declare the marriage invalid. In the appellate instance, the defendant claimed the existence of another case regarding the invalidity of his first marriage. The appellate court twice suspended the proceedings – first until the resolution of the first case on the invalidity of the first marriage (where it was denied), and then until the resolution of the second similar case. The Supreme Court found such repeated suspension unjustified, as the appellate court did not explain the objective impossibility of considering the case and did not take into account that it must verify the legality of the first instance decision within the circumstances that existed at the time of its adoption.
Case No. 911/22/24 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of dispute – recognition of creditors’ monetary claims in the bankruptcy case of LLC “Regional Resources”. The court in rendering the decision was guided by the following: 1) the obligations of LLC “Regional Resources” to LLC “Ukrbud Development” under the financial assistance agreement were terminated by offsetting counterclaims, confirmed by a court decision in another case; 2) monetary claims of individual entrepreneur Ostrianko B.I. are confirmed by a legal assistance agreement and work completion certificates; 3) entering into an agreement by a lawyer as an individual entrepreneur does not deprive him of his lawyer status. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances refusing to recognize the claims of LLC “Ukrbud Development” and recognizing the claims of individual entrepreneur Ostrianko B.I.
Case No. 200/7805/21 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the legitimacy of the enterprise’s inclusion of disputed tax invoices in the tax credit had already been confirmed by previous court decisions that had entered into legal force. The tax authority’s inaction regarding non-execution of these court decisions and non-increase of the tax amount in the VAT administration system is unlawful. Arguments by the tax office about the enterprise’s tax debt and missed court appeal deadline were rejected as unfounded.
Case No. 260/8337/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority first filed an appellate complaint in a timely manner, albeit without paying the court fee, and the repeated submission occurred within a reasonable time after the return of the first complaint. The complainant demonstrated a good faith approach to exercising the right to appeal by paying the fee upon repeated submission. The court also took into account that the return of the first appellate complaint did not deprive the right to re-appeal.
Case No. 160/31313/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the Dnipro Customs regarding the change of goods code (soy concent…Customs Clearance Case (Powder Rat):
The Court of Cassation Instance established that the previous instance courts did not properly verify the customs authority’s procedure for sampling the goods, which requires a reasoned written decision by the head of the customs authority. The courts also did not examine the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the previous customs clearance of an identical product under a different code and did not properly assess the reasonableness of the customs authority’s decision to change the product code.
The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of the previous instance courts and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 380/9564/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on penalty accrual for violating settlement terms in foreign economic activity. The court established that the plaintiff made payment under the contract to the account specified in the contract, and the goods were delivered to the customs territory of Ukraine within the legally established terms by the same contractor, albeit under a slightly different name (MURAT YILDIZ IMPORT EXPORT instead of MOIS MOBILYA LIMITED COMPANY). It was proven that these companies are actually parts of one corporation with the same beneficiary. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of settlement terms, as the contractual obligations were fulfilled properly and timely. The court partially satisfied the plaintiff’s cassation appeal – canceled the appellate court’s decision and upheld the first instance court’s decision regarding the cancellation of the tax notification-decision on penalty accrual.
Case No. 520/31351/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Challenging a tax notification-decision imposing a fine on LLC “Meat Combine ‘IRYNA'” in the amount of 207,812.04 UAH. The court was guided by the fact that the tax service missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court’s decision and did not provide valid reasons for such omission. In particular, the lack of funds for court fee payment cannot be considered a valid reason, especially considering that the tax service did not take all possible measures for timely fee payment and filed a repeated appeal with significant delay (22 days after receiving the ruling on returning the first appeal).
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on refusing to open appellate proceedings for the tax service’s complaint.
Case No. 910/19949/23 dated 06/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the claimed amount of expenses was inflated and unjustified, considering the low complexity of the case (consideration of procedural issues regarding court expenses distribution), the fact that representation was carried out by the same law association in all instances, and the defendant’s legal position was consistent. The court also took into account the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of legal expenses.
Case No. 400/2129/20 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Declaring illegal and invalid the Mykolaiv City Council’s decision on approving the City Zoning Plan. The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that after the previous zoning plan approval decision was canceled in court, the city council adopted a new decision approving the same urban planning documentation without developing new textual and graphic materials and without conducting a public hearing procedure, which violates legislative requirements. The court also recognized that the prosecutor had the right to file such a lawsuit, as they were protecting public interests.
The Supreme Court left the city council’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision.Recognition of the Decision on Approval of the City Zoning Plan as Unlawful and Invalid
Case No. 640/885/21 dated 06/11/2024
The court established that all business transactions of the company were real and confirmed by appropriate primary documents – expense invoices, tax invoices, waybills, payment documents, etc. The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence of fictitious transactions, and its arguments regarding violations by supplier counterparties cannot be grounds for depriving the company of its right to tax credit, as liability should arise for the violator, not for the bona fide taxpayer.
Case No. 906/835/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – distribution of court expenses for professional legal assistance in a case concerning recognition of actions as unlawful. The cassation instance court reviewed the complaint of JSC ‘Zhytomyroblenерgo’ against the additional decision of the first instance court and the appellate court’s ruling on the distribution of court expenses. Unfortunately, the specific arguments of the court cannot be established from the provided text of the decision, as only the operative part is cited. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint of JSC ‘Zhytomyroblenерgo’, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and rejected the application of LLC ‘Syntez-M’ for an additional decision on the distribution of court expenses.
Case No. 910/5925/15-г dated 07/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that LLC “Ukrtekhvuhletsev”, which is a shareholder of JSC “Kyivmedpreparat”, does not have the right to appeal the court decision, as it was not a party to the dispute, and the first instance court decision does not contain any conclusions regarding the rights and obligations of this company. The court emphasized that a court decision in a private law dispute has legal consequences only for the parties to the case and cannot be opposed to a person who did not participate in this case.
Case No. 693/319/20 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of an emphyteusis agreement for a land plot, concluded between the owner and user in 2013. When considering the case, the court was guided by the following: 1) the claim to invalidate the contract cannot be considered as a negatory claim to which the statute of limitations does not apply; 2) the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations, as she applied to the court only in 2020, although the contract was concluded in 2013; 3) although there were grounds for declaring the contract invalid due to its conclusion under the influence of severe circumstances and on extremely unfavorable terms, the missed statute of limitations is an independent basis for rejecting the claim. The court denied the claim due to the plaintiff’s missed statute of limitations.
Case No. 824/47/24 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recognition and permission to execute the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on recovering debt of 41,104.46 euros from Energoatom in favor of the German company WK Energo GmbH. The court reviewed the appeal of Energoatom against the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, which previously satisfied the German company’s application for recognition of the arbitration decision. The Supreme Court found no grounds for canceling the appellate court’s ruling, as the arbitration decision was made in compliance with all procedural requirements, and there were no grounds for refusing its recognition and enforcement. The Supreme Court rejected Energoatom’s appeal and left the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 753/14640/23 dated 31/10/2024
The court noted that the requirementEstablishing the Legal Fact of Cohabitation Is Not an Appropriate Method of Rights Protection, as Such Fact Should Be Established When Considering the Main Claims in the Case. The Court Also Indicated the Impossibility of Recognizing Property as Joint with the Deceased Person. Moreover, the Courts Did Not Ensure Proper Protection of the Minor Child’s Rights in the Proceedings, as a Conflict of Interests Arose Between the Child and Their Legal Representative (Mother).
Case No. 120/6970/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Payment of Additional Compensation to a Servicemember in the Amount of 100,000 Hryvnias for Direct Participation in Combat Operations. The Court Was Guided by the Fact That a Military Unit’s Certificate of a Servicemember’s Participation in Combat Operations Is Sufficient Confirmation for Receiving Additional Compensation, Even If the Formal Procedure for Transferring Lists Between Military Units Was Not Followed. The Court Emphasized That Violations in the Procedure of Transferring Documents Between Military Units Cannot Be a Basis for Depriving a Servicemember of the Right to Compensation If the Fact of Their Participation in Combat Operations Is Confirmed by a Certificate. The Supreme Court Upheld the Decisions of Previous Instances Satisfying the Servicemember’s Claim and Obligating the Military Unit to Pay Additional Compensation of 100,000 Hryvnias for Each Month of Participation in Combat Operations.
Case No. 300/5082/23 dated 07/11/2024
The Court Was Guided by the Fact That the Owner of Immovable Property Has the Right to Receive the Land Plot Underneath According to Article 120 of the Land Code and Article 377 of the Civil Code. The Fact That the Plot Has the Designated Purpose ‘for Conducting Farming’ Is Not an Obstacle to Leasing It to the Property Owner. The Court Also Considered the Principle of Unity of the Legal Fate of the Land Plot and the Building Located on It.
Case No. 824/111/22 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Enerhoatom’s Application for Postponement of Execution of an International Arbitration Decision on Debt Collection in Favor of Swiss Company Zentrum Solutions AG. The Court Did Not Provide Arguments in the Introductory and Operative Parts of the Decision, as This Is a Shortened Version of the Ruling. To Understand the Court’s Motives, It Is Necessary to Wait for the Full Text of the Decision, Which Will Be Prepared Within 5 Days. The Supreme Court Rejected Enerhoatom’s Appeal and Upheld the Ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, Which Apparently Denied the Postponement of Arbitration Execution.
Case No. 917/1876/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Dispute Between LLC “Chutiv Elevator” and JSC “Poltavaoblenergo” Regarding Recognition as Unlawful and Cancellation of a Commission’s Decision. Main Court Arguments: Unfortunately, the Provided Ruling Text Lacks the Motivational Part, So It Is Impossible to Determine the Arguments Used by the Court. The Text Contains Only the Operative Part of the Decision Without Presenting the Case Circumstances and Legal Reasoning. Court Decision: The Supreme Court Rejected the Cassation Appeal of JSC “Poltavaoblenergo” and Left the Challenged Decisions of First and Appellate Instance Courts Unchanged.
Case No. 824/113/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Enerhoatom’s Application to Recognize an Executive Document as Non-Executable in a Case of Recognition and Execution of a Decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Since Only the Operative Part Is Provided Without the Motivational Part, It Is Impossible to Determine the Specific Arguments Used by the Court. However, from the Operative Part, It Is Evident That the Court Did Not Find Grounds to Satisfy Enerhoatom’s Claims.Non-enforcement of an arbitration award. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Energoatom and left the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
[Case No. 522/22450/13-ц dated 31/10/2024]
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that the OSBB ‘Moriak-10’ has no right to appeal the decision of the court of first instance, as this decision did not directly resolve issues regarding the rights and obligations of the OSBB. The court noted that recognizing the contract as valid under Article 220 of the Civil Code of Ukraine only ‘heals’ the lack of notarial certification but does not legalize unauthorized construction. The court also took into account that the OSBB retains the right to separately apply to court regarding unauthorized construction as the owner/user of the land plot.
[Case No. 642/3541/23 dated 06/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the dismissal was lawful, as the employee was absent from work for more than 4 months consecutively due to illness; 2) such dismissal does not require the presence of production necessity; 3) the head of the military administration had the authority to dismiss the director of a municipal enterprise under martial law.
[Case No. 753/4589/19 dated 31/10/2024]
The subject of the dispute is recognizing invalid a lifetime maintenance contract for an apartment, concluded between the plaintiff’s grandmother and the defendant. The court in its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) at the time of contract conclusion, the plaintiff’s grandmother had serious mental health problems, confirmed by medical documents and witness testimonies; 2) a day before contract conclusion, the grandmother was ill with an acute respiratory disease, which worsened her mental state; 3) after her health improved, the grandmother herself applied to court to declare the contract invalid but died before the case was concluded. The court satisfied the claim and declared the lifetime maintenance contract invalid, as at the time of its conclusion, the plaintiff’s grandmother could not understand the meaning of her actions or control them.
[Case No. 753/9649/20 dated 31/10/2024]
The cassation instance court established that in considering the case, the courts of previous instances did not clarify key circumstances: who owns the land plot where the disputed fence is located, and whether the fence’s placement on a land plot not belonging to the plaintiff actually creates obstacles. The appropriate circle of persons to be involved in the case was also not determined.
[Case No. 2040/5795/18 dated 06/11/2024]
The court noted that to recognize operations as unrealistic, mere references to the contractor’s violation of tax legislation or criminal proceedings against its officials are insufficient. It is necessary to investigate the actual movement of assets, changes in the taxpayer’s property status, primary documents, and evidence of purchased goods’ use in economic activity. The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate all case circumstances and evidence.
[Case No. 620/5386/23 dated 07/11/2024]
The court noted that previous instances did not conduct proper investigation of all case circumstances, particularly did not clarify what specific tasks and where the serviceman performed during the disputed period, although he was officially seconded to perform tasks in the combat zone. It was also not established whether it could have happened that the military unit for certain reasons did not record the plaintiff’s participation in combat operations in relevant documents.
[Case No. 1740/1947/18 dated 06/11/2024]Court Reasoning:
1. Case No. 640/38063/21 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions imposing VAT tax obligations on the taxpayer.
Main Court Arguments:
1) The taxpayer’s primary documents (transport waybills, work completion certificates) contain significant deficiencies and do not meet legislative requirements for their execution.
2) Absence of documents that typically accompany actual transaction performance (petroleum product accounting logs, work estimates, etc.).
3) Established lack of labor resources and fixed assets among contractors to conduct economic operations.
4) The taxpayer failed to prove due diligence in contractor selection.
Court Decision: Upheld previous instance courts’ decisions refusing the taxpayer’s claim and recognized tax notifications-decisions as lawful.
2. Case No. 380/12548/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Payment of additional monetary compensation up to 100,000 UAH to a State Border Guard Service serviceman for direct participation in combat actions.
Main Court Arguments:
1) Merely being in a combat zone is insufficient for receiving increased compensation – direct combat participation must be documentarily confirmed.
2) State Border Guard Service Administration orders determining combat participation confirmation procedures are applicable, even without state registration.
3) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate all available evidence of plaintiff’s combat participation (commander reports, combat logs, etc.).
Court Decision: Annul previous instance court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the first instance court for comprehensive evidence examination.
3. Additional Cases:
– In the first case, the court noted that performed works were of current, not capital repair nature, confirmed by expert assessment.
– In another case, the court determined that additional compensation under Resolution #168 is a temporary payment during martial law, not included in severance or health improvement assistance calculations, but should be considered when calculating unused vacation compensation.
– In a banking case, the court ruled that bank operations repaying debt through monetary coverage from a related party do not constitute controlled transactions, as they are not goods purchase/sale operations and do not represent bank income.
