Case No. 756/10489/23 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to release from serving a sentence with probation a person convicted of a fatal traffic accident. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person committed a crime by negligence, sincerely repented, compensated for the damage, had no previous convictions, was young, and had positive characteristics. An important factor was also the position of the victim (the mother of the deceased), who asked not to apply real punishment, as the convicted person provides her with financial assistance. The court concluded that the correction of the convicted person is possible without isolation from society.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision to release the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation.
Case No. 991/12700/24 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – determining jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding consideration of a complaint about a prosecutor’s inaction in two criminal proceedings. Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court’s full reasoning is not provided. However, from the context, it can be understood that the applicant requested the transfer of the complaint review to the High Anti-Corruption Court, but the court did not find sufficient legal grounds for this.
The Supreme Court denied the motion to determine jurisdiction with the High Anti-Corruption Court.
Case No. 367/6150/19 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: appealing a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for illegal sowing and cultivation of 27 cannabis plants. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) cultivation of cannabis in the amount of 10 to 50 plants is a criminal offense with a formal composition, which is considered complete from the moment of sowing or beginning of plant care; 2) the motive and purpose of cultivation (even for medical needs) are not significant for qualification; 3) the act cannot be considered insignificant, as it carries public danger as a crime in the field of drug trafficking.
The court left unchanged the first instance verdict, which found the person guilty and imposed a fine, but released from punishment due to the expiration of statute of limitations.
Case No. 214/7110/17,214/3103/19 dated 31/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the appellate court judge’s ruling on returning an appellate complaint against investigative judges’ decision to close criminal proceedings regarding a person’s death. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court judge made significant procedural law violations. First, he mistakenly equated appellate review of the ruling on the merits with resolving a motion to restore the appeal term. Second, the judge did not fulfill the cassation court’s instructions regarding the need to conduct an appellate review in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. Third, the conclusion that the victim’s representative has no right to file an appellate complaint is not based on case materials.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new case review.
Case No. 636/6051/23 dated 29/10/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing a court verdict regarding a person who voluntarily took the position of housing and communal services management head in the occupation administration. The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person consciously cooperated with the occupation authorities, received remuneration in rubles, which was not a survival method under occupation conditions. When sentencing, the court took into account both mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance)Here is the translation:
Both mitigating (personal characteristics, absence of criminal record) and aggravating (use of martial law conditions) circumstances were considered. The imposed punishment (5 years of imprisonment) is minimal within the article’s sanction and corresponds to the principles of fairness and individualization. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, rejecting the cassation appeal.
Case No. 448/1440/22 dated 07/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns challenging the special confiscation of a vehicle used in an attempt to smuggle weapons and drugs across the customs border of Ukraine. The court was guided by the following: 1) the vehicle was registered to the defendant, who agreed to its confiscation in a plea agreement; 2) the defendant’s wife did not provide convincing evidence that the vehicle is joint marital property purchased with shared funds; 3) disputed property issues between the spouses regarding vehicle ownership should be resolved through civil proceedings. The Supreme Court left unchanged the previous instances’ decision on special confiscation of the vehicle in favor of the state.
Case No. 991/1206/23 dated 07/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s refusal to restore the term for appealing the seizure of funds amounting to 156,000 USD and 6,000 EUR. The court was guided by the fact that the appellate appeal term for a person not summoned to the court session should be calculated from the day of receiving a copy of the court decision, regardless of other information sources. Since the owner of the seized property was not notified about the case review and did not receive a copy of the property seizure ruling, the appellate court erroneously refused to restore the appeal term without properly verifying when this term began. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 189/2310/23 dated 31/10/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the verdict regarding a serviceman who unauthorized left a military unit during martial law. The court was guided by the following: 1) the crime was completed after the amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine came into force, which preclude applying a more lenient punishment; 2) the imposed punishment corresponds to the gravity of the crime and the person of the perpetrator; 3) the convicted person evaded serving a previous punishment, therefore the rules for combining punishments were correctly applied. The Supreme Court left unchanged the verdict of the first instance and appellate courts, which sentenced the convicted person to 5 years and 7 months of imprisonment.
Case No. 916/1930/20(916/3453/23) dated 17/10/2024
The court was guided by the fact that during the respondent’s tenure as a manager, debt to creditors arose, and he allowed unlawful inaction regarding preservation of the company’s property (vehicles and agricultural equipment), which could have been used to repay debts, and did not take actions to prevent bankruptcy. Although the respondent claimed he was unaware of being registered as a manager, he did not provide proper evidence of the absence of his will to occupy this position and did not take any actions to protect his rights after learning about it.
Case No. 910/1930/23 dated 05/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is declaring invalid the decisions of PJSC “Ukrnafta” shareholders’ general meeting, the Ministry of Defense order and the power of attorney regardingrepresentation at these meetings. The court denied the claim because at the time of the disputed general meeting, the plaintiff was no longer a shareholder of PJSC “Ukrnafta” (shares were forcibly alienated by the state), and therefore did not have the right to challenge the meeting’s decisions. The court noted that the mere fact of the plaintiff challenging the procedure of forced share alienation in another court proceeding does not give him the right to challenge the meeting’s decisions made after losing shareholder status. The Supreme Court left the previous instances’ decision unchanged in terms of claim denial, but modified their reasoning, indicating that courts should not have investigated the legality of the forced share alienation procedure and the meeting’s conduct, as this goes beyond the subject of proof in this case.
Case No. 299/1949/21 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of inheritance renunciations and determination of an additional term for submitting an inheritance acceptance application after mother’s death. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of an error in renouncing inheritance, as the legal consequences of such renunciation were explained to them, and they knew that the renunciation concerned the entire inherited property, not just the land plot. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not exercise their right to withdraw the inheritance renunciation statements within the established period. An error regarding the transaction’s motives (calculation of a certain inheritance distribution) is not of significant importance. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court’s decision to deny the claim for invalidating inheritance renunciations.
Case No. 910/3532/23 dated 02/10/2024
The court established that the “last resort” supplier properly notified about terminating electricity supply to the consumer from 01.02.2022 due to existing debt. At the same time, the existence of debt under the previous contract cannot be automatically transferred to new contractual relations, and each new supply requires a new contract. Therefore, electricity volumes consumed after the supply termination date should be attributed to the distribution system operator’s losses, not the “last resort” supplier.
Case No. 923/898/21 dated 05/11/2024
The court denied the claim because the plaintiff did not provide evidence that before appealing to court, they attempted to negotiate with the defendant about establishing an easement voluntarily. The court noted that the checkpoint services contract project provided by the defendant cannot be considered a proposal to conclude an easement agreement, as it has a different subject of regulation. Additionally, the plaintiff did not specify the easement fee in the claim.
Case No. 910/12603/23 dated 06/11/2024
The court established that the defendant indeed did not extend the bank guarantee period, although they had such an obligation under the contract. At the same time, the court took into account that work under the contract was suspended due to martial law, and the customer did not provide notification about its resumption. Guided by principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court decided to reduce the penalty amount to 5% of the claimed sum.
Case No. 910/11291/23 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of dispute – reimbursement of legal assistance expenses in the cassation instance court in a case about debt collection. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the provisionsTranslation of the Provided Legal Text:
Regarding the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine on Reimbursement of Court Expenses. The court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed legal assistance expenses and determined their reasonable amount. In this case, the court partially satisfied the applicant’s claims, establishing the reimbursement amount at 20,000 hryvnias. The court ruled to recover 20,000 hryvnias of legal assistance expenses in the cassation instance from LLC “Talan Systems” in favor of Individual Entrepreneur Sydorenko O.V.
[Case No. 926/869-б/23 dated 05/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, from the day the debtor is declared bankrupt, they do not incur any additional obligations, including tax payments. The debtor’s submission of tax declarations after being declared bankrupt does not create an obligation to pay taxes whose payment deadline occurred after the liquidation procedure was opened. The court also considered the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the impossibility of recognizing tax claims whose payment deadline occurred after the debtor was declared bankrupt.
[Case No. 910/3818/23 dated 29/10/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the legal nature of the disputed legal relations is of a contractual nature, therefore, there are no grounds for recovering funds as unjustly acquired; 2) the buyer did not make actual payment for the purchased asset, which is a necessary condition for concluding a purchase and sale agreement; 3) the existence of a court decision obliging to conclude an agreement does not exempt the buyer from the obligation to pay for the asset.
[Case No. 922/5224/23 dated 14/11/2024]
Subject of the dispute – recovery of funds between LLC “Kharkivgaz Zbut” and LLC “Kharkivmiskgaz”. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the court decision, which contains only the introductory and operative parts, it is impossible to establish the arguments the court was guided by when making the decision, as the motivational part of the resolution is absent. The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of the cassation appeal of LLC “Kharkivgaz Zbut” and left the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
[Case No. 926/4021/21 dated 06/11/2024]
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not properly examine the evidence of the prosecutor of the Ministry of Culture notifying about violation of state interests before appealing to court. In particular, no assessment was made of the prosecutor’s letters and the ministry’s response, which could confirm the prosecutor’s compliance with the procedure of appealing to court in the state’s interests.
[Case No. 910/1018/24 dated 05/11/2024]
The court established that the previous instance courts did not properly investigate all circumstances of the case, specifically: whether the land plot belongs to the protection zone of a cultural heritage site; whether the lessee took all necessary actions for plot development according to the contract terms; whether there was a violation by the lessee of contract terms regarding completion of development. The courts also did not provide proper assessment of the land plot inspection act and other important evidence in the case.
[Case No. 921/672/21(921/53/23) dated 29/10/2024]
Subject of the dispute: invalidation of apartment alienation agreements (donation agreement and subsequent purchase and sale agreements) within the case of an individual’s insolvency. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) Article 42 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, which the plaintiff referred to, cannot be applied to the transaction
