Case No. 991/3227/24 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Proceedings against a People’s Deputy of Ukraine for Offering and Providing Unlawful Benefit in the Form of Cryptocurrency to an Official for Facilitating Fund Allocation from a State Fund.
Main Court Arguments: The court established that the accused, being a People’s Deputy of Ukraine and a member of the anti-corruption committee, offered and provided an unlawful benefit of 0.39 bitcoin (equivalent to USD 10,036) to the head of a state agency for facilitating fund allocation from the fund for liquidating the consequences of armed aggression for university repairs. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about crime provocation, as the initiative for providing the unlawful benefit originated from the accused himself. The court considered it an especially aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed during martial law by a People’s Deputy who was a member of the anti-corruption committee.
Court Decision: The accused was found guilty under Part 4 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment with property confiscation and prohibition from holding certain positions for 3 years.
Case No. 380/12531/21 dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the company did not allow officials from the State Geological Service to conduct an inspection and did not fulfill the requirements of the controlling body’s instructions, thereby violating legislation requirements and the subsoil use agreement. Although the company claimed it had no access to wells due to property seizure, the court established that no seizure was imposed on subsoil use objects, therefore these arguments were unfounded.
Case No. 826/15099/18 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns the legitimacy of a tax authority leaving a taxpayer’s objections to an inspection report without consideration and subsequently issuing tax notifications-decisions. The court established that the key issue was determining the date of submitting objections to the inspection report. The tax authority claimed the objections were hand-delivered, while the company proved they were sent by mail. The first and appellate instance courts did not properly examine evidence, particularly a tax authority letter dated 03/01/2019, which confirmed receipt of objections by postal delivery. The Supreme Court canceled previous instances’ decisions and referred the case for new consideration because courts did not properly establish the factual circumstances and did not examine all available evidence.
Case No. 990/266/24 dated 08/11/2024
The court established that according to the law, a decision to refuse opening a disciplinary case is made by the Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice and is not subject to appeal. Therefore, responding to the plaintiff’s complaint by letter was a legal and justified response, as the law does not require the HCJ to make decisions on complaints whose submission is not provided for by legislation. Provisions on appealing HCJ decisions only concern decisions on bringing or refusing to bring a judge to disciplinary responsibility, not refusal to open a case.
Case No. 440/1964/20 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the order of dismissing an employee with tuberculosis due to civil service position reduction. When considering the case, the court was guided by: 1) Article 21 of the Law of Ukraine “On Combating Tuberculosis” establishes a guarantee of preserving the workplace for a tuberculosis patient for the entire treatment period; 2) previous instance courts incorrectly limited this period only to the employee’s incapacity period confirmed by sick leave; 3) it is necessary to establish the actual…The translation of the provided text is as follows:
Regarding the total duration of the plaintiff’s treatment to determine the legality of their dismissal. The Supreme Court revoked the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to fully clarify all circumstances of the case.
[Case No. 808/2844/14 dated 11/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the transfer of the property complex of SE “ZTMK” to LLC “ZTMK” was carried out not by the state enterprise itself, but by the State Property Fund of Ukraine as the representative of the owner (state) within the framework of reorganization. Such an operation is a management action for the formation of the authorized capital, and not a gratuitous transfer of property subject to VAT. Moreover, according to the Tax Code, operations on the reorganization of legal entities are not a taxable object.
[Case No. 340/5992/20 dated 08/11/2024]
The court noted that for the correct resolution of the case, it is necessary to: 1) determine January 2008 as the month of income increase for indexation calculation for the period until March 2018; 2) verify whether the plaintiff had the right to receive indexation-difference after March 2018, when salary increases occurred; 3) establish specific indexation amounts subject to payment. The court emphasized that the military unit’s powers to determine the base month for indexation are not discretionary.
[Case No. 440/8797/22 dated 08/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute concerns non-payment of indexation of monetary support to a serviceman for the period from 2016 to 2018. The court was guided by the fact that the military unit, when filing an appellate complaint, did not provide evidence of receiving a copy of the first instance court decision on the specified date (September 21, 2023). Although the military unit claimed that all evidence was in the case materials, the court established the absence of both an application for issuing a copy of the decision and evidence of sending such a copy. The court also emphasized that returning the appellate complaint is not a limitation of access to court, as the applicant has the right to reapply with such a complaint while complying with all procedural requirements. The Supreme Court left the military unit’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate complaint unchanged.
[Case No. 362/3769/23 dated 13/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the decision on reinstatement is subject to immediate execution; 2) a delay in execution is considered the non-issuance of an order for reinstatement immediately after the court decision is pronounced; 3) subsequent cancellation of the reinstatement decision on appeal does not exempt the employer from the obligation to pay average earnings for the period of non-execution of the decision.
[Case No. 755/8434/22 dated 13/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute is challenging the first instance court verdict and the appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a person for theft and robbery. The court was guided by the fact that the law establishing criminal liability for theft (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code) has lost its force, therefore, the proceedings in this part are subject to closure. The court also established that it is necessary to exclude the qualifying feature of repetition from the charge of robbery (Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code) and mitigate the punishment, since the first crime has been decriminalized. The court applied Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which allows imposing a milder punishment. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint – closed the proceedings regarding theft, excluded the feature of repetition from robbery, and reduced the punishment to 2 years of imprisonment.
[Case No. 171/455/21 dated 14/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the employer lawfully suspended the employeeTermination from work due to refusal to undergo mandatory occupational safety instructions after returning from downtime. Since the position of power unit operator belongs to high-risk work, passing such instructions was mandatory for admission to work. The fact of the employee’s refusal to undergo instructions was properly documented.
Case No. 201/9121/22 dated 06/11/2024
The court established that the defendant indeed received a loan and did not return it on time. However, the court took into account that during the period of martial law and quarantine, the borrower is exempt from paying penalties and fines. The court also noted that all procedural rights of the defendant were observed, although he did not appear at court hearings.
Case No. 380/935/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court established that the company’s business operations were real and confirmed by properly executed documents. The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence of the fictitious nature of the operations or the lack of necessary resources for the counterparties. The tax authority’s claims about the riskiness of counterparties were based only on assumptions without conducting proper inspections.
Case No. 160/32062/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that preferential old-age pension is not a separate type of pension provision, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of retirement age) for old-age pension assignment. Since the plaintiff is already receiving an old-age pension on preferential terms, they are not entitled to re-assignment of the same type of pension (old-age pension) on general grounds with the application of a new average wage indicator. In this case, the Supreme Court directly deviated from its previous legal positions that allowed such a possibility.
Case No. 420/33365/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority waited almost 3 months after returning the first appeal to resubmit, which indicates excessive delay. The tax authority’s arguments about mass staff dismissals and heavy workload were not accepted by the court, as these are subjective reasons and indicate improper work organization. The court also emphasized that the reasons for missing the deadline must be objectively insurmountable and not depend on the person’s will.
Case No. 520/5696/22 dated 12/11/2024
The court noted that artillery shelling and occupation threat are not grounds for unauthorized leaving of the place of service without leadership’s order. To correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish: whether the police agency was involved in defense measures, how service was organized after the invasion, whether the police officer informed the leadership about the intention to leave the place of service, whether he could return according to the order dated 10.03.2022.
Case No. 440/3992/22 dated 12/11/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) most violations attributed to the plaintiff concerned the period before his appointment or when he was on a business trip; 2) indicative budget revenue indicators were fulfilled at 121.1%; 3) some violations were not confirmed by proper evidence.
Case No. 420/16207/23 dated 08/11/2024
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the amount of salary increase for the plaintiff in March 2018 (5,174.90 UAH) exceeded the possible indexation amount (4,463.15 UAH). According to Procedure No. 1078, if the income increase amount exceeds…If the claimant is seeking the indexation amount, then indexation is not accrued. The court also noted that since December 2015, instead of the concept of “base month”, the concept of “income increase month” has been used, which has a different legal meaning.
Case No. 990/95/24 dated 08/11/2024
The court established that the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) did not timely consider the appeal regarding the behavior of its chairman. However, since at the time of the case review, the HQCJ chairman had already resigned voluntarily, the Commission lost its authority to evaluate his behavior. Therefore, the court cannot compel the HQCJ to review this appeal, as such actions no longer fall within its competence.
Case No. 560/16087/23 dated 08/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the military unit’s challenge to the appellate court’s refusal to restore the deadline for appealing a decision on monetary provision for a serviceman. The court proceeded from the fact that the military unit missed the 30-day deadline for appeal without valid reasons, as the decision was properly sent through the ‘Electronic Court’ system. Heavy workload and organizational difficulties of the military unit are not objective obstacles to timely appeal. An authority cannot benefit from its own organizational problems. The Supreme Court left the military unit’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 200/5940/23 dated 08/11/2024
The court noted that to correctly resolve the issue of indexation rights, it is necessary to establish: the amount of income increase in March 2018, the possible indexation amount in that month, and whether the income increase exceeds the possible indexation amount. Previous instance courts incorrectly compared the plaintiff’s monetary provision without taking into account all its components, particularly the monthly bonus for March 2018, established taking into account the increased official salary.
Case No. 420/13987/23 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that a three-month statute of limitations (not a one-month period, as the appellate court erroneously decided) should apply to this dispute, since the plaintiff is an authority. The court also indicated that when identifying a missed deadline, the plaintiff must be given the opportunity to file an application to restore the deadline and justify the validity of the reasons for its missed.
Case No. 420/22192/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the preferential old-age pension, assigned under Law No. 1788-XII, is not a separate type of pension, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of retirement age) for assigning a regular old-age pension. The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and concluded that persons receiving a preferential old-age pension are not entitled to re-assignment of the same type of pension on general grounds with the application of a new average wage indicator.
Case No. 300/8969/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the preferential old-age pension, assigned under Law No. 1788-XII, is not a separate type of pension, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of retirement age) for assigning an old-age pension. Since such a pension is assigned and paid according to the procedure and conditions of Law No. 1058-IV, persons already receiving a preferential old-age pension are not entitled to re-assignment of the same type of pension (old-age pension) on general grounds after reaching retirement age. In this case, the Supreme Court deviated from its previous position regarding the possibility.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
Case No. 120/12196/23 dated 13/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court improperly suspended the proceedings in the case, referring to a similar case being considered in the Supreme Court. The court explained that suspension of proceedings is possible only if a similar case is being considered by a chamber, joint chamber, or the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, and not by any court composition. Moreover, the court noted that the concept of ‘similar legal relations’ means the identity of the subject composition, object, and subject of legal regulation.
Case No. 380/10744/22 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the refusal to provide housing to a former police officer who has the status of a war invalid. The cassation instance court noted that since the plaintiff served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and has the status of a war invalid, the dispute is related to the implementation of social guarantees acquired during public service. The court took into account the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which such disputes belong to the jurisdiction of administrative courts, not civil courts. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling on closing the proceedings and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court for consideration on the merits in the administrative court procedure.
Case No. 700/1098/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court noted that the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protecting their rights, as they requested to recognize the contract as renewed, whereas the appropriate method of protection in such cases is to recognize the additional agreement as concluded with its content being set out. The court referred to the legal positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which without concluding an additional agreement, completing the procedure of renewing a land lease contract is impossible, and such an agreement must be registered for the lease right to arise.
Case No. 140/29885/23 dated 11/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that to receive such a supplement, a person must have an officially registered place of residence in the radioactive contamination territory. Although the plaintiff actually lives in Chartoryisk village (radioactive contamination zone), she is officially registered in Lutsk city, which does not belong to such territories. A certificate from the village council about actual residence cannot replace official registration of the place of residence. Moreover, the pension is paid at the place of registration in Lutsk city, so the increase should also be tied to the same place.
Case No. 340/222/20 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that in reality, not a liquidation but a reorganization of the territorial justice body by merging with other bodies took place. During reorganization, the employer was obliged to follow the employee release procedure defined by labor legislation – offer the employee another job and take into account their priority right to remain at work. Since these requirements were not met, the dismissal was deemed illegal.
Case No. 320/21765/23 dated 12/11/2024
The appellate instance court refused the tax authority to open appellate proceedings since it missed the appeal deadline and did not provide valid reasons for its renewal. The tax authority twice filed an appellate complaint without paying the court fee, and references to martial law and lack of funds were not recognized by the court as valid reasons. The Supreme Court agreed that such behavior by the tax authority was not conscientious.Case No. 824/85/24 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recognition and granting permission to enforce an international commercial arbitration decision on debt recovery under a supply contract from NAEK Energoatom JSC in favor of a Czech company.
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the following: 1) the dispute is of a civil law nature and can be subject to arbitration; 2) the arbitration clause in the contract is valid and the parties voluntarily agreed to arbitration; 3) enforcement of the arbitration decision does not violate the public order of Ukraine, as it concerns private economic relations between legal entities.
The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance on recognition and granting permission to enforce the arbitration decision on recovering 84,745.26 euros from NAEK Energoatom JSC.
Case No. 806/3693/17 dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) alcohol and tobacco trade was carried out at an address that did not match the address in the license, therefore the fine for unlicensed trade is legitimate; 2) the absence of primary documents for the goods directly at the trading location is not a violation if the goods are properly recorded in the entrepreneur’s general accounting system; 3) calculating the fine based on the value of sold goods, rather than the received batch, is legitimate, as the entrepreneur did not provide documents on the batch value.
Case No. 808/7067/13-а dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: the company legitimately included VAT credit for imported goods received within warranty repair, because: 1) the tax was actually paid upon import; 2) the goods were used in economic activity; 3) the warranty repair cost was already included in the main product price. The court also recognized that the company was not obligated to consider the results of previous tax inspections, decisions on which were challenged and canceled in court.
Case No. 336/2137/23 dated 15/11/2024
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the following: 1) the plaintiff has the right to compensation for moral damage, as they were acquitted by a court verdict; 2) the compensation amount should be calculated based on the minimum wage in effect at the time of case consideration (6,700 UAH), not the special amount of 1,600 UAH; 3) the compensation calculation period is determined from the moment of notification of suspicion until the acquittal verdict becomes legally valid.
Case No. 539/2085/22 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: the plaintiff violated migration legislation by not leaving the territory of Ukraine after the residence permit was canceled and not taking measures to legalize their stay. The presence of a wife and children in Ukraine is not a basis for exemption from liability for migration legislation violation. The plaintiff’s voluntary refusal of an interpreter during the decision announcement means there were no procedural violations.Case No. 813/2932/17 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the arrest of a taxpayer’s funds may be imposed if there are grounds specified in paragraph 94.2 of Article 94 of the Tax Code, including refusal to allow an inspection. In this case, such arrest does not depend on the existence of a tax debt or a decision by the controlling authority to seize property. It is important that the arrest of funds in accounts is carried out solely on the basis of a court decision upon request by the tax authority.
Case No. 752/16783/18 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is declaring invalid the assignments of claims under credit and mortgage agreements and canceling the registration of property rights to an apartment. The court was guided by the fact that an individual cannot be a party to an assignment of claims under a credit agreement if the original creditor (bank) is not in the liquidation procedure. Such parties can only be banks and financial institutions. Since the claim was assigned to an individual in violation of the law, there are no grounds for registering property rights to the mortgaged property in their name. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the first instance court’s decision declaring the assignment of claims invalid and canceling the registration of property rights to the apartment.
Case No. 440/17245/23 dated 12/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the military unit missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court’s decision. The court established that a copy of the decision was properly sent to the military unit through the electronic cabinet, and the reasons for missing the deadline (martial law and heavy workload) are not objective and insurmountable circumstances that would make it impossible to file an appeal on time.
Case No. 200/4101/23 dated 13/11/2024
When considering the case, the court was guided by the fact that to determine the procedure and conditions for paying additional remuneration to State Border Guard Service of Ukraine servicemen, Orders No. 392/0/81-22-AG and No. 628/0/81-22-AG of the Border Guard Service Administration should be applied, not Instruction No. 188. The court noted that these orders do not limit the servicemen’s rights to receive remuneration but only establish the procedure for documenting participation in combat operations.
Case No. 806/3693/17 dated 13/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging tax notifications-decisions on imposing fines on an entrepreneur for selling alcohol and tobacco without a license and not keeping inventory records. The court was guided by the following: 1) the entrepreneur was trading at an address not specified in the license, which is a violation; 2) the calculation of the fine for unlicensed trade was lawful, as the entrepreneur did not provide documents on the cost of goods batches; 3) the absence of primary documents at the trading location is not a violation if the goods are properly recorded in the central office. The court partially satisfied the entrepreneur’s claim – canceled the fine for not keeping inventory records but upheld the fine for trading without a license.
Case No. 200/2262/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court found that the plaintiff missed the 6-month period for filing a lawsuit without valid reasons. Although the plaintiff referred to martial law, the absence of a legal counsel, and a difficult financial situation, the court noted that these circumstances did not prevent the plaintiff from previously filing 9 similar lawsuits, which were later withdrawn. Moreover, a direct causal relationship between the introduction of martial law and the inability to file a lawsuit on time was not proven.Case No. 990/287/24 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and demanding that it take certain actions. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the decision have been provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the court in making its decision. To fully analyze the court’s legal position, the motivational part of the judicial decision is necessary. Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court completely denied the administrative claim.
Case No. 420/811/23 dated 08/11/2024
The court noted that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish: to which unit the plaintiff was seconded, what specific tasks he performed, and whether his direct participation in combat operations is confirmed by relevant documents. The obligation to prepare such documents is placed on unit commanders, not on the serviceman himself. Previous instance courts did not investigate these important circumstances, limiting themselves to a formal approach.
Case No. 120/6851/23 dated 08/11/2024
The court recognized that a serviceman’s right to receive compensation is confirmed by a military unit certificate and a combat order. The absence of some formal documents (lists in the prescribed form) cannot be grounds for refusing payment, as this would impose an unfair burden on the serviceman due to procedural shortcomings of military units.
Case No. 607/29635/19 dated 07/02/2024
The court established that the plaintiff PERSON_1, who won electronic bidding for property sale, did not receive a certificate of real estate acquisition and did not acquire ownership. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the disputed transaction and was not the property owner, he did not prove by appropriate evidence the violation of his rights by this transaction and entries in the State Register of Real Property Rights. Failure to prove a violated right is an independent basis for dismissing the claim.
Case No. 306/872/21 dated 13/11/2024
The court established that: 1) the mere fact of absence of guardianship authority’s permission when concluding a donation agreement is not an unconditional basis for declaring it invalid; 2) the plaintiff did not lose the right to use the house and lived in it until his death, meaning the agreement did not violate his rights as a minor child; 3) it was not proven that the agreement was fictitious or made to avoid property seizure.
Case No. 750/10874/21 dated 12/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the convict’s guilt was fully proven by a set of evidence: the defendant’s own confession, witness testimonies, forensic medical expert conclusions establishing causal relationship between knife wounds and the victim’s death, and other case materials. The court found no grounds for applying provisions on necessary defense or extreme necessity, as the convict acted not with the purpose of protection, but with a desire to cause bodily harm. The imposed punishment of 7 years imprisonment corresponds to the severity of the crime and the person of the guilty party.
Case No. 556/2114/22 dated 14/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of violating traffic safety rules and leaving a person in danger (Part 2 of Article 286, Part 1 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision – they will be presented in the full text of the resolution to be announced on November 19, 2024.Here is the translation of the provided text:
However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court did not find grounds for canceling or modifying the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court left the Volyn Appellate Court’s verdict from April 18, 2024, unchanged and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 380/853/24 dated 11/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the First Deputy Prosecutor, when filing a lawsuit, did not provide evidence of his official position (service ID or appointment order). Although the prosecutor claimed that information about his position is public on the prosecutor’s official website, the court pointed out that such information is not official evidence, and confirming powers is the obligation of the person applying to the court.
Case No. 500/51/24 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of professional legal assistance costs amounting to 17,500 UAH from the tax authority in favor of the taxpayer. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the case is uncomplicated and typical, with numerous judicial precedents; 2) the tax authority objected to the claimed amount as unjustified and disproportionate; 3) the claimed amount is disproportionate to the case complexity and the volume of services actually provided by the lawyer. The court upheld the previous instances’ decision to recover legal assistance costs in a reduced amount of 2,500 UAH instead of the claimed 17,500 UAH.
Case No. 620/7657/23 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff is attempting to recover the same funds for the same period (from 14.12.2016 to 11.10.2021), which were already awarded by a court decision in case No. 620/6246/20. The fact that the plaintiff considers the previous calculation incorrect is not grounds for filing a new lawsuit with the same demands. The court noted that after the decision becomes legally binding, parties cannot again assert the same claims on the same grounds.
Case No. 804/16049/15 dated 08/11/2024
The first and appellate instance courts denied the claim, relying on the testimony of the contractor’s director, who denied involvement in the company’s activities. However, the Supreme Court indicated that mere testimony provided to the investigator cannot be sufficient evidence of the economic transactions’ unreality. The court must examine the entire set of evidence, including primary documents, the possibility of actual service performance by the contractor, and its use in the plaintiff’s economic activities.
Case No. 320/38193/23 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging tax notifications-decisions issued based on documentary scheduled on-site inspection of LLC “Norma Plus”. Main court arguments: 1) 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; 2) CMU Resolution No. 89, which allowed inspections, could not alter Tax Code provisions; 3) Conducting an inspection during the moratorium is a violation that entails the unlawfulness of the resulting tax notifications-decisions. Court decision: The tax authority’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the previous instance courts’ decisions canceling tax notifications-decisions remained unchanged.
Case No. 120/11257/23 dated 08/11/2024
Subject of dispute: A serviceman challenges non-payment of additional remuneration of 100,000 UAH for direct participation in combat actions. Main court arguments: 1) A military unit certificate of combat action participation is appropriate evidence for receiving additional remuneration, even1) If the formal procedure for document exchange between military units was not followed. 2) Violation of the document transfer procedure between military units cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to compensation. 3) However, the courts did not investigate the fact of the serviceman being in a state of alcoholic intoxication in May 2022, which could have been a basis for non-payment of compensation for that month. Court decision: The military unit’s cassation complaint was partially satisfied – the case was sent for a new review regarding the payment of compensation for May 2022, with other parts of the previous instance court decisions remaining unchanged.
[Case No. 127/24300/23 dated 08/11/2024]
The court considered the powers of a lawyer to leave the claim without consideration. The court established that the lawyer had proper authority to represent the client based on a warrant that did not contain any restrictions on his rights. Moreover, the client did not provide evidence that the lawyer acted without his consent, and no application was filed to terminate or limit the lawyer’s powers.
[Case No. 340/222/20 dated 08/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that there was not a liquidation, but a reorganization of the territorial justice body by merging with other bodies. During the reorganization, the employer was obligated to follow the employee release procedure defined by labor legislation – offer the employee another job and take into account their priority right to remain at work. Since these requirements were not met, the dismissal was deemed illegal.
[Case No. 460/9405/21 dated 08/11/2024]
The cassation instance court found that the previous instance courts did not properly investigate the procedure for involving employees in such service, did not assess the variable nature of the plaintiff’s work and the available payslips confirming the relevant surcharges in 2019. The courts did not establish all factual circumstances on which the correct resolution of the case depends, thus violating the principle of official clarification of all circumstances.
[Case No. 824/85/24 dated 14/11/2024]
Subject of dispute – recognition and permission to execute the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on collecting debt under a supply contract with Energoatom JSC. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court from the provided text, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided without the reasoning part, where the court’s legal positions are usually set out. The Supreme Court left the appeal of Energoatom JSC unsatisfied and unchanged the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which apparently satisfied the Czech company’s application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitration decision.
[Case No. 420/8736/23 dated 12/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the city council’s refusal was unjustified, as the only basis for refusing to approve the land management project could be its non-compliance with legal requirements, which the city council did not prove. At the same time, the court pointed out that the city council should first evaluate the submitted land management project for compliance with all legislative requirements before making a decision on its approval or refusal.
[Case No. 160/29434/23 dated 12/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the preferential old-age pension, appointed under Law No. 1788-XII, is not a separate type of pension provision, but only provides preferential conditions (reduction of pension age) for appointing a regular old-age pension. Since such a pension is appointed and paid in the procedureAccording to the conditions of Law No. 1058-IV, persons who are already receiving preferential old-age pensions are not entitled to re-assignment of the same type of pension on general grounds. In this case, the Supreme Court deviated from its previous position, which allowed such a possibility.
Case No. 280/12848/21 dated 08/11/2024:
The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court prematurely refused to open appellate proceedings without properly verifying the fact of the military unit filing a motion to restore the appeal deadline. The Supreme Court noted that the right to appeal cannot be limited due to postal document transmission times if the case participant has conscientiously fulfilled their procedural obligations.
Case No. 280/7856/23 dated 08/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the appellate court, in refusing to open appellate proceedings, did not properly resolve the issue of restoring the appeal deadline. Although the appellant filed an application to restore the deadline and explained the reasons for missing it (technical failures in the electronic court system), the appellate court did not evaluate these reasons in the operative part of the ruling.
Case No. 613/1010/17 dated 14/11/2024:
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding conviction for desecration of a grave (Part 3, Article 297 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The cassation instance court found no grounds for canceling or modifying previous court decisions. Unfortunately, since only the operative part of the ruling is provided, the specific arguments of the court regarding the decision are unknown. The full text of the ruling is to be announced on November 19, 2024. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged and rejected the convicted person’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 120/17546/23 dated 12/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the military unit missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court decision, and the reasons for missing it (technical problems with the Electronic Court, high workload due to the number of cases, martial law) are not valid, as their direct impact on the ability to file an appeal on time has not been proven. The court emphasized that problems in the organization of the institution’s work are not an objective obstacle to timely appeal.
Case No. 520/21921/21 dated 12/11/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that the inspection was conducted during the moratorium on tax inspections during the COVID-19 quarantine, established by the Tax Code of Ukraine. Although the Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 89 allowed certain inspections, changes to the moratorium deadline could only be made by amending the Tax Code. Therefore, conducting the inspection was illegal, which invalidates its results.
Case No. 990/36/23 dated 13/11/2024:
Subject of dispute – appealing the President of Ukraine’s decree on applying personal sanctions. The court considered the case as a court of first instance, as cases challenging the President’s acts are directly subject to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the specific arguments of the court cannot be established from the provided text, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided without the reasoning part, where the court’s legal positions are usually presented. Based on the case review, the court denied the claim, thereby recognizing the sanctions applied to the plaintiff as lawful.
Case No. 280/8964/21 dated 13/11/2024:
The court established…Here is the translation of the provided legal text:
He noted that the tax authority did not prove the unreality of the taxpayer’s economic transactions with counterparties, as the courts did not investigate all circumstances of the case, including the technical possibility of counterparties to make deliveries, their material and labor resources. There was also no proper assessment of evidence regarding the fictitious nature of counterparties’ activities, and it was not clarified who signed the primary documents. At the same time, the court confirmed that industrial buildings used by the taxpayer for production activities are not subject to real estate tax.
Case No. 640/20905/21 dated 13/11/2024
The court analyzed three key issues: 1) the legitimacy of tax authority’s requirements regarding discounting long-term debt, recognizing that national accounting standards do not contain a methodology for such calculation; 2) the legitimacy of using a trademark without paying royalties, confirming that this is permitted by law when selling goods introduced into circulation by the rights holder; 3) the nature of electronic money transactions, recognizing them as payment for goods, not as irrevocable financial assistance.
Case No. 520/19398/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the dismissal of an employee from the Department of Strategic Investigations of the National Police of Ukraine and a demand for reinstatement. Although the provided text lacks the reasoning part of the decision, the operative part shows that the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the first and appellate instance courts, which likely satisfied the employee’s claim. The cassation instance court, upon review, reached the opposite conclusion and decided that the dismissal was lawful. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instance courts and denied the claim for reinstatement and recovery of wages for the forced absence.
Case No. 160/15485/22 dated 13/11/2024
Subject of dispute – a National Police pensioner’s demand to oblige the National Police Main Directorate to provide a new certificate on the amount of monetary allowance for pension recalculation. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that declaring certain points of CMU Resolution No. 103 invalid did not create grounds for recalculating the plaintiff’s pension, as these points did not relate to persons serving in the National Police. Moreover, since the adoption of Resolution No. 988 and Procedure No. 260, which regulate police monetary allowance, the amount of such allowance types has not changed, and therefore there are no grounds for providing a new certificate. The Supreme Court denied the claim, canceling the appellate court’s decision and upholding the first instance court’s decision.
Case No. 380/653/20 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – imposition of arrest on funds of PJSC “Nadiya Mine” by the tax authority due to a tax debt of over 144 million hryvnias. The court was guided by the fact that the tax authority missed the three-month period for court appeal, which began from the date of the last property inventory act (February 27, 2019) and ended on May 26, 2019. Meanwhile, the tax authority appealed to the court only in December 2019, did not prove valid reasons for missing the deadline, and did not take any additional measures to repay the tax debt. The court also noted that the tax authority has the right to file a new application for administrative property arrest under Article 283 of the CAC of Ukraine, provided it proves the measures taken to collect the debt. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instance courts’ decisions to leave the tax authority’s claim without consideration due to missing the court appeal deadline.
Case No. 340/222/20 dated 08/11/2024The text was about several legal cases. Here’s the translation:
The case involved the fact that there was not actually a liquidation, but a reorganization of the justice territorial body by merging with other bodies. During the reorganization, the employer was obligated to follow the employee release procedure defined by labor legislation – offer the employee another job and take into account their priority right to remain employed. Since these requirements were not met, the dismissal was deemed illegal.
[Case No. 400/13387/23 dated 08/11/2024]
The court in its decision was guided by the fact that the territorial administration of the State Judicial Administration acts as a budget funds manager and executes court presidents’ orders regarding payment calculations. Since the court president’s order terminated the plaintiff’s average salary payment due to changes in Article 119 of the Labor Code, and the legality of this order was not challenged, there are no grounds to consider the respondent’s actions unlawful. The court also considered the previous practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases.
[Case No. 152/1123/23 dated 14/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute was challenging the defense’s verdict regarding a person convicted of theft committed on a particularly large scale (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The cassation instance court, having reviewed the case materials regarding the previously convicted PERSON_7, who was conditionally early released from imprisonment and committed another crime, found no grounds to satisfy the defense’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions and recognized them as legal and substantiated. The Supreme Court left the Vinnytsia Appellate Court’s ruling from May 20, 2024, unchanged and the defense’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
[Case No. 990/103/24 dated 11/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute was challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding the plaintiff’s participation in a competition for vacant judge positions in appellate courts. The court, having reviewed the case materials, concluded there were grounds for partial satisfaction of the claim. Unfortunately, the provided abbreviated decision text lacks the reasoning part, so it is impossible to cite specific arguments the court used in making its decision. Based on the case review, the court partially satisfied the claim: canceled the challenged HQCJ Ukraine decision, obliged a repeated review of the plaintiff’s application for competition participation, and recovered the court fee paid by the plaintiff.
[Case No. 120/7096/23 dated 11/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that for construction works in the protection zone of national significance monuments, urban planning permits alone are insufficient – a separate approval for earthworks from the Ministry of Culture is required. Since the construction object is located in the protection zone of the Jesuit and Dominican Monastery complex and in the archaeological layer protection zone, the developer had to obtain such approval before starting work. The court also noted that the developer was aware of the need for earthworks approval since 2018 when the land management project was approved.
[Case No. 320/2261/23 dated 12/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute was challenging tax notifications-decisions refusing VAT budget compensation for 5.3 million UAH for import operations. The cassation instance court noted that the appellate court did not properly investigate all evidence in the case, specifically: did not assess the legality of the tax audit; did not consider the plaintiff’s inventory documents; did not examine customs declarations and other primary documents confirming the reality of import operations. The court emphasized that conclusions about the absence of economic operations’ reality cannot be based solely on assumptions.The Supreme Court cancelled the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 380/11916/22 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the military unit’s decision to refuse a Ukrainian citizen crossing the state border for studying abroad during martial law. The court established that the decision to refuse border crossing is unjustified and unmotivated, as it does not specify a specific legislative norm for restricting exit, did not define which documents the plaintiff should have provided, and contained inconsistencies regarding the authorized person who made the decision. The court emphasized that such a decision must be clear, understandable, and contain specific grounds for its adoption. The Supreme Court left the military unit’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the unlawfulness of the border crossing refusal, but modified the reasoning part of previous court decisions regarding the application of paragraph 2-6 of the State Border Crossing Rules.
Case No. 186/125/20 dated 01/05/2024
The cassation instance court noted that the previous instance courts incorrectly determined the husband’s share in the disputed apartment (2/3) without providing proper justification for such distribution. The courts also erroneously applied the statute of limitations, calculating it from the moment of marriage dissolution, rather than from the moment when the person learned about the violation of their right. Additionally, the court of first instance did not consider the petition to interrogate an important witness.
Case No. 201/12325/20 dated 14/08/2024
The cassation instance court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that individual residential houses built before August 5, 1992, are not subject to commissioning procedures, and the only document confirming their existence is a technical passport. The appellate court also did not properly investigate evidence regarding the ownership of the disputed property by the testator and did not evaluate the evidence that the plaintiff attempted to attach during the appellate review.
Case No. 480/5165/21 dated 11/11/2024
Subject of dispute – declaring unlawful and cancelling urban planning conditions and restrictions issued by LLC ‘B.R.S.’ for reconstructing non-residential premises into a cafe with a store. The court was guided by the fact that the detailed territory plan for Zasumska St., 2/1 in Sumy was not developed or approved, and public hearings for its draft were not conducted, which was a mandatory condition for obtaining special approvals in the landscape-recreational zone. The public hearings conducted by the developer regarding project documentation cannot replace hearings for the detailed territory plan. Therefore, the development intentions do not meet urban planning documentation requirements. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instance courts’ decisions to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim and cancel urban planning conditions and restrictions.
Case No. 460/19947/23 dated 11/11/2024
The court noted that for such pension assignment, having a victim’s certificate and registration in the radioactive contamination zone is insufficient. It is necessary to documentarily confirm the fact of physical residence in this zone for at least 3 years as of January 1, 1993. Previous instance courts did not properly investigate all evidence, particularly where the plaintiff served military service and studied during the disputed period.
Case No. 200/2262/23 dated 07/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff missed the 6-month period for court appeal without valid reasons. Although the plaintiff referred to martial law, there are noThe position of a legal counsel and difficult financial situation, the court noted that these circumstances did not prevent the plaintiff from previously filing 9 similar lawsuits, which he then withdrew. Moreover, a direct causal link between the introduction of martial law and the inability to timely apply to the court was not proven.
Case No. 120/5139/23 dated 13/11/2024
The court noted that for the correct resolution of the case, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate: whether the payment was linked to being in a specific territory understood as a combat zone, what tasks the serviceman performed, and whether there were cases of payments to other servicemen in similar conditions. The court emphasized that the orders of the State Border Guard Service Administration regulating the procedure for payment cannot be interpreted as a way to restrict servicemen’s right to receive it.
Case No. 340/156/24 dated 13/11/2024
The cassation court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions that the plaintiff missed the 6-month period for applying to court without valid reasons, as she should have learned about the violation of her right regarding the calculated lifetime monetary allowance back in January 2021. References to quarantine restrictions, martial law, and poor health were deemed insufficient to confirm the validity of reasons for a prolonged (over two years) missed deadline.
Case No. 200/1707/24 dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that replacing the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons (2,684 UAH) guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine with another calculated value (2,102 UAH) is unlawful, as the State Budget Law cannot change the norms of the special law on the judicial system. The court also took into account that the Dnipro Appellate Court, from which the judge retired, is authorized to issue such a certificate.
Case No. 363/2930/22 dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor chose the wrong method of protecting the violated right – a negative action (removing obstacles to use), whereas in this case, a vindictive action (claiming property from illegal possession) would be an effective method of protection. The key to distinguishing these actions is the presence or absence of property possession by the plaintiff – since the state is not the actual possessor of the disputed plots, it has the right to claim their recovery, not removal of obstacles to use.
Case No. 420/24634/21 dated 08/11/2024
The court noted that to correctly resolve the dispute, it is necessary to establish: 1) the amount of the plaintiff’s income increase in March 2018; 2) the amount of possible indexation of monetary allowance in March 2018; 3) whether the income increase exceeds the possible indexation amount. The courts of first and appellate instances did not properly investigate these circumstances and did not verify whether the plaintiff has the right to receive indexation difference.
Case No. 340/222/20 dated 08/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the applicant did not provide evidence of bringing the court decision to compulsory execution through state executive service bodies. The court emphasized that applying to court under Article 383 of the Administrative Procedure Code is possible only after the person has used all possibilities of compulsory execution of the decision through the executive service. Since the applicant did not follow this sequence of actions, his application was premature.
Case No. 640/20363/20 dated 13/11/2024The court established that the tax authority unreasonably refused VAT budget compensation because: 1) the fact of VAT payment upon import of goods is confirmed by customs declarations; 2) legislation does not provide that the negative VAT value is calculated for individual operations or goods; 3) marketing services received by the taxpayer from contractors were of a real nature and were related to economic activity.
Case No. 933/602/23 dated 15/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of systematic non-payment of rent by the tenant. The available invoices confirm the transfer of wheat as rent for 2020-2021, and the plaintiff did not refute the authenticity of his late father’s signatures on these invoices and did not file a motion for a handwriting examination. The court also took into account that during his lifetime, the plaintiff’s father never filed claims regarding non-payment of rent.
Case No. 127/5836/22 dated 14/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s refusal to renew the term for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling. Since the decision contains only the operative part without reasoning, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments the court was guided by. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the Supreme Court found grounds for canceling the appellate court’s ruling and scheduling a new review of the issue of renewing the appeal term. Following the review of the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court partially granted it, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 459/562/22 dated 14/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s challenge to the appellate court’s decision regarding the punishment assigned to a person accused of malicious evasion of alimony and evasion of serving a sentence. The court in making its decision was guided by the need for proper application of criminal law provisions regarding sentencing for a set of crimes and a set of sentences. The Supreme Court found it necessary to modify the previous court decisions regarding sentencing, applying probation supervision with specific obligations imposed on the convicted person. Following the review of the cassation complaint, the Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s requirements, modifying the previous court decisions and assigning a final punishment in the form of probation supervision for a period of 2 years and 15 days with specific obligations imposed.
Case No. 454/2783/21 dated 13/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court incorrectly applied procedural law provisions by refusing to open appellate proceedings. In particular, the mother’s arguments were not properly verified that she was not notified about the case review in the first instance court, did not receive a copy of the court decision, and only learned of its existence in December 2023. The powers of the lawyer who allegedly represented her interests were also not verified.
Case No. 640/1952/22 dated 12/11/2024
The appellate instance court refused to open appellate proceedings because the tax authority missed the term for appellate appeal and did not prove the valid reasons for such omission. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that the inability to timely pay court fees and delay in re-filing an appellate complaint after its return are not valid reasons for renewing the missed term.
Case No. 175/4316/19 dated 13/11/2024The Court of Cassation Instance established that the courts of previous instances violated the rules of territorial jurisdiction, as they did not properly verify the plaintiff’s registered place of residence at the time of filing the claim. Moreover, the courts did not provide proper assessment of all evidence in the case, particularly the bank’s evidence regarding the existence of debt and the statement on the application of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 295/8538/20 dated 14/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff filed an appellate complaint after the expiration of a one-year period from the day of drafting the full text of the court decision. In this case, she cannot be considered a person unaware of the case proceedings, as she herself initiated the legal process as a plaintiff and was aware of the case’s existence in court. There was also no evidence of missed deadline due to force majeure circumstances.
Case No. 522/20164/23-E dated 13/11/2024
The Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff violated the rules of foreign nationals’ stay in Ukraine by evading departure after the expiration of the temporary residence permit. The court established that the plaintiff’s rights were not violated – he voluntarily waived an interpreter, was familiarized with the decision and the right to appeal. The court also noted that references to the necessity of readmission procedure are unfounded, as the challenge is specifically to the decision on forced return, not forced deportation.
Case No. 240/16844/23 dated 11/11/2024
The Court established that minor children who are assigned a pension due to loss of breadwinner are non-working pensioners due to their incapacity. Therefore, they are entitled to a pension increase of two subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons, provided they reside in a radioactively contaminated territory. The court emphasized that the calculation should be based on the subsistence minimum, not the minimum wage.
Case No. 822/1387/18 dated 13/11/2024
The Cassation Court noted that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the tax authority’s arguments about criminal proceedings against the cooperative’s counterparty, did not identify persons who signed primary documents, and did not verify their powers. The actual movement of assets and the reality of economic transactions between the parties were also not investigated.
Case No. 400/10652/21 dated 13/11/2024
The Court noted that the appellate instance did not properly investigate evidence of the reality of economic transactions, specifically: did not verify documents regarding goods transportation between cities, did not establish counterparties’ necessary resources for conducting operations, and did not analyze documents on goods receipt and storage. The court emphasized that the mere presence of primary documents is insufficient – it is necessary to establish the actual movement of assets and the reality of economic transactions.
Case No. 640/32031/21 dated 13/11/2024
The Court established that the company’s economic transactions were real and confirmed by appropriate primary documents. The tax authority did not provide convincing evidence of transaction fictiveness, and its arguments about the lack of sufficient land plots among counterparties were documentarily refuted. Moreover, the tax authority exceeded the scope of inspection – instead of checking the legality of declaring negative VAT value, it checked budget compensation issues, for which it had no authority.
