Case No. 638/12275/18 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Accusation of a commercial court judge of abuse of power when considering a commercial case regarding debt recovery and a counterclaim for gas transfer obligation.
Main Court Arguments:
1. At the time of case consideration, there was ambiguous judicial practice regarding determining the property or non-property nature of claims and, accordingly, the court fee amount.
2. There is no proof of the judge’s intent to abuse power and cause serious consequences in the form of non-receipt of court fees by the state budget.
3. There is no evidence of the judge’s connection with the defendant in the case or the existence of a purpose to obtain unlawful benefits.
Court Decision: The judge was found not guilty of committing a criminal offense and was acquitted due to the lack of evidence of a crime.
Case No. 910/13240/22 (910/5595/22) dated 28/11/2024
Main Court Arguments: The prosecutor incorrectly identified the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as the body authorized to protect state interests in disputed legal relations, as such powers belong to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. Moreover, the lawsuit was essentially filed by the state against itself through different state bodies (CMU and MOD), which contradicts procedural legislation, as the plaintiff and defendant cannot coincide. In such a situation, the prosecutor should have been an independent plaintiff, not acting in the interests of the CMU.
Case No. 925/927/23 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of preferential right to extend municipal property lease agreement and invalidation of city council decision, auction results, and lease agreement.
Main Court Arguments:
1) The lessee’s preferential right is not absolute and can be lost if prescribed legal actions are not taken.
2) Since the balance holder did not use the disputed property for its own needs, and a new auction was conducted without considering the plaintiff’s preferential right, this violates their rights.
3) Claims to recognize preferential right and invalidate city council decision and auction results are ineffective protection methods, as they will not restore violated rights.
Court Decision: Partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceled the appellate court decision regarding recognition of preferential right, invalidity of city council decision and auction results, but maintained the decision invalidating the lease agreement as the only effective method of protecting violated rights.
Case No. 920/1063/21 dated 06/11/2024
The court in its decision was guided by:
1) The lessor (city council) clearly expressed disagreement with lease agreement renewal by adopting a corresponding decision;
2) The land plot is needed for public needs – creating a recreation area for schoolchildren;
3) The plaintiff did not prove the presence of capital immovable property on the plot, as the flower pavilion is a temporary structure.
Case No. 918/1009/23 dated 28/11/2024
The appellate court, satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the OSBB (Apartment Building Association) board chairman was authorized to conclude contracts only within his competence and according to board decisions. Since there is no evidence of the OSBB board granting powers to conclude the disputed contract and its additional agreement, the court concluded that the contract was signed with excess powers. The court also established that service acceptance certificates did not contain information about the specific list and volume of services provided.Case No. 759/5206/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a prosecutor’s appeal against an acquittal in a case of theft of metal products during martial law. The cassation court established that the appellate court made significant procedural law violations: did not properly verify the prosecutor’s arguments, did not re-examine evidence when appealing the acquittal, groundlessly refused to question a witness, and conducted a hearing without proper notification of the victim’s representative. It was particularly important that when appealing the acquittal, the appellate court should have created all necessary conditions for comprehensive evidence examination, but failed to do so.
The Supreme Court cancelled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 908/2519/22 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – a tax authority’s appeal against a court ruling approving the liquidator’s report and liquidation balance in the bankruptcy case of LLC ‘Digitek Service’.
The cassation court established that previous instance courts violated the case review procedure by simultaneously considering the tax authority’s petition and the liquidator’s report in the final hearing. This limited the controlling body’s right to form and submit substantiated monetary claims in the bankruptcy case. The courts also did not properly investigate the liquidator’s actions regarding searching for the bankrupt’s property and analyzing primary documentation.
The Supreme Court cancelled the previous instance courts’ decisions and referred the case for a new review to the first instance court at the liquidation procedure stage.
Case No. 760/20083/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal of the Kyiv Appellate Court’s verdict regarding conviction for theft committed on a particularly large scale (Part 4, Article 185 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 ruling will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court panel reviewed the defense counsel’s cassation complaint and found no grounds for its satisfaction. The court acted in accordance with procedural norms, specifically Articles 433, 436, 441, 442 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court left the Kyiv Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation complaint unsatisfied.
Case No. 755/1623/20 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal of the first instance court’s verdict and appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, accused of rape and hooliganism.
The court does not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be announced later. However, based on the review result, it can be assumed that the court identified significant violations of criminal procedural law that prevent adopting a lawful and substantiated decision.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, cancelled the previous instance courts’ decisions, and referred the case for a new review to the first instance court.
Case No. 953/6943/22 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appeal of the first instance court’s verdict and appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings charging a person with a criminal offense under Part 2, Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (disseminating information about the movement of weapons, armaments, and ammunition into Ukraine).
As this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for the decision. However, the text shows that the Supreme Court reviewed the convicted person’s cassation complaint in full and found no grounds for its satisfaction.
The Supreme Court left the previous instance courts’ decisions unchanged and the cassation complaint…Convict’s argument – dismissed.
Case No. 727/5640/18 dated 25/11/2024
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of the appellate court’s decision regarding a person accused of theft (Part 3, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, stating only that the full text of the resolution would be announced later. It is worth noting that the complaint was filed with the aim of rehabilitating a deceased person, which is a special case of criminal case appeal. The Supreme Court left the decision of the Chernivtsi Appellate Court unchanged and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 909/1152/17 dated 26/11/2024
The court established that the head of the State Enforcement Service did not ensure proper control over the execution of the court decision and did not take all necessary measures to execute it, despite having the appropriate powers under the Standard Regulations on the State Enforcement Service Department. In particular, it was established that the debtor had property that could be seized, but the relevant actions were not taken. The inaction of the State Enforcement Service head led to the debtor being able to alienate the available property and evade the court decision.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns reimbursement of legal assistance costs for a lawyer amounting to 7,000 UAH in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage. The court was guided by the fact that legal assistance costs must be real, substantiated, and reasonable. The courts of first and appellate instances partially satisfied the claims and reduced the reimbursement amount to 5,000 UAH, taking into account the actual volume of services provided and the principles of proportionality and fairness. The Supreme Court, considering the NBU’s cassation appeal, indicated that since the main decision in the case was canceled and sent for a new review, the additional decision on court costs should also be canceled, as it is an integral part of the main decision. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the NBU’s cassation appeal and canceled the previous instances’ decision on recovering legal assistance costs.
Case No. 904/3502/22 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute: determining the size of the authorized capital and participants’ shares in an LLC due to one participant’s failure to make their additional contribution according to the general meeting decision. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff, as a company participant, knew or could have known about another participant’s failure to make their contribution as early as 2010, when the general meeting was held and a new version of the charter was approved. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit had long expired before the lawsuit was filed in 2022. The court did not recognize the reasons for missing the statute of limitations as valid, as the plaintiff, as a company participant, should have exercised due diligence regarding their property. The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the claim due to the statute of limitations.
Case No. 910/17666/23 dated 28/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court had no right to consider the admissibility of the Ministry of Justice’s appeal after the proceedings in the case were suspended due to the need to involve a legal successor of the deceased plaintiff. Such procedural actions violate the principle of adversarial proceedings, as the legal successor is deprived of the opportunity to file objections against the opening of appellate proceedings.
Case No. 225/2468/21 dated 20/11/2024
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) after the divorce, the child lived with the mother,1) the father created obstacles in communication between the mother and the child; 2) the father arbitrarily, without the mother’s consent, took the child to another region and did not inform about the new place of residence; 3) restricting the child’s communication with the mother and biological sister contradicts the best interests of the child.
Case No. 910/5152/24 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery from LLC “Himvektor” of debt for delivered goods (construction lime) and penalty sanctions under the supply agreement. The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the fact of goods delivery is confirmed by primary documents (invoices, waybills) containing the respondent’s seals; 2) the respondent did not dispute the fact of receiving the goods, but only pointed out deficiencies in document preparation; 3) non-essential deficiencies in primary documents (absence of position and full name of the person who received the goods) are not grounds for non-recognition of the economic transaction if the documents contain other mandatory details and are sealed.
The court satisfied the claim and recovered from the respondent a debt of 3.85 million hryvnias, as well as 3% per annum and inflationary losses.
Case No. 909/252/16 (909/385/23) dated 28/11/2024
The court noted that to impose subsidiary liability, it is necessary to prove: 1) the founder’s fault in bringing the enterprise to bankruptcy, 2) insufficient property of the debtor to satisfy creditors’ claims, 3) causal relationship between the founder’s actions and bankruptcy. At the same time, the absence of a conclusion about bringing to bankruptcy is not an unconditional basis for refusing to satisfy claims, but the liquidator has the right to file such a statement only after completing the sale of the bankrupt’s property.
Case No. 910/6667/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor chose an inappropriate method of protecting rights, since merely declaring the contract invalid without a claim for return of funds or property would not lead to real restoration of violated rights. The Supreme Court referred to established practice, according to which a claim to declare a transaction invalid must be combined with a claim for recovery of funds or property retrieval for effective rights protection.
Case No. 916/1729/22 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of a biological canal cleaning contract and obligation to vacate an artificial water body. The court established that under the guise of a contract for biological canal cleaning, a contract for land use with a water body for aquaculture (fish breeding) was actually concealed. The Water Management Department, as a permanent land user, did not have the right to transfer state land to third parties’ use, as only authorized state authorities are empowered to do so. The department also did not have the authority to grant permits for settling and catching aquatic bioresources.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to invalidate the contract and obligate vacating the water body.
Case No. 916/1247/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: recovery of funds under a contract for manufacturing and installing metal structures, including 10% withheld by the customer from the cost of completed works and penalty sanctions for violating work completion deadlines.
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the contractor did not provide evidence of completing the full scope of work under the contract, therefore there are no grounds for returning the withheld 10% of funds; 2) the fact of the contractor’s delay in completing works by 36 calendar days is confirmed by case materials, which is grounds for penalty collection; 3)…Calculation of 3% per annum and inflationary losses on the penalty amount is unlawful, as such calculations are possible only on the principal debt. Based on the results of the case review, the court refused to recover the funds withheld by the customer in favor of the contractor and partially satisfied the customer’s counterclaim for penalty sanctions.
Case No. 910/15075/23 dated 27/11/2024
Main arguments of the court: 1) The moment of obligation to pay for services rendered does not depend on the registration of tax invoices, as the parties signed service acceptance certificates; 2) Sending invoices through the market management system is an appropriate method of delivery; 3) When calculating inflationary losses, the inflation index should be rounded to a decimal number after the decimal point.
Case No. 922/5175/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision of the Eastern Interregional Territorial Department of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by LLC ‘Termik Group’. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the introductory and operative parts of the decision that are available for analysis. However, given that the court left unchanged the decision of the appellate instance, it can be concluded that the court agreed with the legal position of the appellate court and found no grounds for its review. The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal of LLC ‘Termik Group’ and left the resolution of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court unchanged.
Case No. 905/1361/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff properly fulfilled the requirements of procedural legislation by submitting a preliminary calculation of court expenses in the statement of claim. The appellate court erroneously refused to reimburse legal assistance expenses due to the alleged non-submission of such calculation along with a response to the appeal. The Supreme Court pointed out that submitting the calculation in the statement of claim is sufficient and precludes the possibility of refusing reimbursement based on part 2 of Article 124 of the Commercial Procedural Code.
Case No. 369/12025/15-k dated 21/11/2024
The appellate court found key evidence in the case inadmissible due to procedural violations in their obtaining – protocols of crime scene and corpse examinations were compiled with violations, video recordings did not allow reliable identification of the accused, and the investigative experiment was conducted in violation of the right to defense. The Supreme Court agreed that some evidence is indeed inadmissible, although some violations did not reach the level of significance.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – distribution of legal assistance expenses in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage. The court was guided by the fact that an additional resolution on the distribution of court expenses is an integral part of the main judicial decision. Since the Supreme Court canceled the main decision in the case and sent it for a new review, the additional resolution on collecting court expenses is also subject to cancellation. The issue of distributing court expenses should be resolved by the court that will make the final decision based on the results of a new case review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the National Bank of Ukraine and canceled the additional resolution of the appellate court on collecting court expenses.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns reimbursement of court expenses in the amount of 4,455 UAH in favor of the defendant in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage. The court was guided by the fact that the additional resolution on reimbursement of court expenses is an integral part of the main courtSupreme Court Decisions Summary:
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
Subject: Recovery of legal assistance costs of 38,000 UAH from the National Bank of Ukraine in a mortgage foreclosure case.
The Court ruled that the additional decision on legal costs is an integral part of the main judicial decision. Since the Supreme Court cancelled the main decision and referred the case for a new review, the additional decision on legal assistance costs is also subject to cancellation. The court noted that the distribution of court expenses should be carried out by the court that will make the final decision based on the new case review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the National Bank of Ukraine’s cassation appeal and cancelled the previous courts’ decisions on recovering legal assistance costs.
Case No. 920/1402/23 dated 27/11/2024
The Court determined that the Hotyn Village Council, as the state registration entity, is the proper defendant, not the specific state registrar. This is justified by the fact that the state registrar acts on behalf of the local self-government body, is in an employment relationship with it, and the local self-government body is responsible for registration actions. Additionally, any state registrar can make an entry cancelling the state registration of a legal entity’s termination, not just the one who made the initial entry.
Case No. 927/1342/23 dated 23/10/2024
The cassation instance court found that previous courts did not investigate key case circumstances, including: the existence of a regional state administration decision on property transfer, the plaintiff’s authority to conclude use agreements, and the validity of the 1991 executive committee decision on property transfer, considering historical restrictions on transferring architectural monuments to religious organizations.
Case No. 903/1251/23 (903/946/23) dated 26/11/2024
The Court noted that the property administrator has the right to file such an application as part of their obligations to protect the debtor’s property. The Court emphasized that legislation does not prohibit the property administrator from filing applications to cancel a court order, and the list of possible applications and appeals by the property administrator is not exhaustive. Moreover, the property administrator acted not in personal interests but in the debtor’s interests.
Case No. 910/17582/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject: Recovery of 44,000 UAH for professional legal assistance from LLC “Marine Project International” by LLC “River Gate” in a damages case.
The Court’s decision was based on the following principles:
1) Each judicial instance must independently resolve the issue of distributing court expenses incurred during case review;
2) The cassation instance court can only consider expenses incurred during cassation review;
3) The plaintiff did not provide a detailed description of services provided by the lawyer specifically in the cassation instance, despite the representation of interests.The confirmation of the interest and preparation of the response is acknowledged. The court partially satisfied the application and recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 8,000 UAH for legal assistance in the cassation instance instead of the claimed 44,000 UAH.
Case No. 915/767/21 dated 06/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Recovery from LLC “Naval Park” of funds for free use of a municipal land plot on which the company’s real estate objects are located. Main arguments of the court: 1) From the moment of acquiring ownership of real estate, the owner has an obligation to pay for the use of the land plot under this property, even if the land right is not formalized; 2) The absence of state registration of the land plot right for the local self-government body does not exempt the building owner from the obligation to pay for land use; 3) Debt calculation can be carried out based on technical documentation on the normative monetary valuation of lands and other relevant evidence containing information about land value. Court decision: To recover from LLC “Naval Park” in favor of Mykolaiv City Council 9,087,964 UAH for free use of the land plot.
Case No. 911/826/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: Recovery of penalty sanctions (penalty and fine) under a contract for the purchase of ambulance vehicles. Main arguments of the court: 1) The prosecutor had no right to represent the interests of a municipal organization, as it is not a public authority but acts as an ordinary party to economic relations. 2) Although the prosecutor had the right to represent the interests of the city council, recovering the penalty in favor of the municipal organization would not restore the interests of the territorial community, as these funds are not returned to the budget. 3) No budget funds were spent under the contract, therefore the interests of the territorial community were not violated. Court decision: The prosecutor’s claim in the interests of the municipal organization was left without consideration, and in the interests of the city council – without satisfaction.
Case No. 910/5152/24 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of 4.8 million UAH in a claim by LLC “Ukrkhimtrading” against LLC “Khimvektor”. The court closed the cassation proceedings for one of the grounds of appeal (para. 1, part 2, art. 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code), and for another ground (para. 4, part 2, art. 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code) refused to satisfy the complaint, as it did not find violations of procedural law that would be grounds for canceling the decisions of previous instances. As a result, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the first and appellate instances, which satisfied the claim.
Case No. 922/5110/21 (922/4755/23) dated 14/11/2024
The court noted that a contract may be declared invalid as fraudulent if it is concluded by the debtor to the detriment of creditors. Important criteria are the moment of conclusion (in a suspicious period), the counterparty (debtor’s relatives), and the purpose of the transaction (avoiding debt repayment). The court emphasized the difference between a fictitious and a fraudulent transaction – the latter aims to actually alienate property to avoid foreclosure.
Case No. 906/211/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – complaint by LLC SPC ‘Ukrainian Aviation Systems’ against the private executor’s inaction regarding non-closure of the enforcement proceeding. The court established that the debtor sent documents to the recoverer by mail, but the recoverer refused to accept them due to inconsistency of the contents with the description and absence of main document details. The court could not reliably establish the fact of proper execution of the court decision by the debtor, as contradictory acts were drawn up.Regarding the presence and absence of violations during dispatch, and the debtor did not provide the disputed postal item to the court or executor for content verification. Moreover, the debtor did not fulfill the court decision within 10 days after the initiation of enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances refusing to satisfy the complaint against the private executor’s inaction, as there were no grounds for terminating the enforcement proceedings due to the lack of evidence of actual execution of the court decision in full.
Case No. 455/338/20 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of dispute – challenging the verdict of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court in criminal proceedings regarding violation of traffic safety rules (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Unfortunately, as this is only the operative part, the document lacks the court’s arguments for the adopted decision. However, from the operative part, it is evident that the court found significant violations that became the basis for canceling the appellate court’s decision. At the same time, the court considered it necessary to apply a preventive measure to the accused in the form of detention.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 233/137/20 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of dispute: challenging the court verdict regarding conviction for involuntary manslaughter (Part 1 of Article 119 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court was guided by the fact that the accused, holding a knife during a conflict with the victim, although did not foresee the possibility of death, should have and could have foreseen it. The court took into account that the accused held the knife with the blade forward for a long time, did not attempt to throw it away or leave the premises, and after wounding the victim, did not provide assistance and left the scene. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about a casus (accidental causing of death), as the accused had a real opportunity to foresee the consequences of his actions.
The Supreme Court upheld the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, which sentenced the person to 3 years of imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter.
Case No. 910/8666/23 dated 12/11/2024
The court in rendering the decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the fact of heat energy consumption by the defendant and the amount of debt are confirmed by appropriate evidence; 2) the right to claim debt recovery legally passed to the plaintiff as a result of the auction for the sale of bankrupt’s property; 3) the additional agreement to the contract is valid, as it was actually approved by the legal entity’s actions regardless of the representative’s powers.
Case No. 640/758/19 dated 21/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court made significant violations by not providing proper assessment of all case circumstances when applying a milder punishment (4 years of imprisonment instead of 7-9 years provided by the sanction). In particular, it was not properly substantiated which circumstances significantly reduce the severity of the crime, and the circumstances cited in the verdict only characterize the convicted person. The issue of imposing additional punishment and the fate of physical evidence was also not resolved.
Case No. 904/3057/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the defendant (Dnipro KEU) received payment from the plaintiff (Ukr-Trade LTD LLC) for services in the amount of 1.26 million hryvnias but did not provide any evidence of actual service provision. The contract conditions provided for the possibility of prepayment until theHere is the translation of the provided text:
Regarding the acceptance of work completion certificates, however, the respondent did not prove the fact of fulfilling their obligations under the contract.
[Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute concerns reimbursement of legal assistance expenses for an attorney in a case about foreclosure on a mortgage. The appellate court partially satisfied the respondents’ claims for reimbursement of legal assistance expenses, reducing the claimed amount by 50% due to their disproportionality to the scope of services provided. However, since the Supreme Court canceled the main decision in the case and sent it for a new review, the additional resolution on expense reimbursement is also subject to cancellation, as it is an integral part of the main decision. At the same time, the court indicated that the issue of court expenses distribution should be resolved by the court that will make the final decision based on the results of the new case review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the National Bank of Ukraine and canceled the appellate court’s additional resolution on reimbursement of legal assistance expenses.
[Case No. 905/1426/23 dated 28/11/2024]
The subject of the dispute is joint recovery by the bank from the borrower and guarantors of debt under a credit agreement in the amount of 7.7 million US dollars. The appellate court suspended the proceedings due to one of the respondents being on military service. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that suspension of proceedings requires two types of evidence: an order on personnel appointment for military service and evidence of the military unit’s involvement in combat operations. Since the respondent provided only a certificate from the military unit, which is not sufficient evidence, there were no grounds for suspending the proceedings. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on suspension and sent the case for a new review.
[Case No. 910/2217/23 dated 27/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that only persons who were participants in the consideration of the bankruptcy proceedings opening issue or acquired the status of a bankruptcy case participant in the legally established procedure have the right to appeal the ruling on opening bankruptcy proceedings. LLC ‘VTK Kashtan’ did not acquire such status, as it was not authorized by the debtor’s general shareholders meeting to represent their interests. The court also took into account that the mere presence of a share in the debtor’s authorized capital does not automatically grant the right to appeal court decisions in a bankruptcy case.
[Case No. 922/4855/23 dated 26/11/2024]
The cassation instance court noted that the appellate court incorrectly refused to satisfy the claim solely on the basis of the absence of a criminal case verdict. The appellate court should have evaluated all available evidence – inspection protocols, geodetic survey materials, satellite imagery data, environmental inspection reports, etc. The court should also have taken into account the lease agreement conditions regarding the lessee’s obligation to return the plot in proper condition.
[Case No. 910/14543/23 dated 19/11/2024]
The court was guided by the fact that the amount of court expenses reimbursement should be real, justified, and proportional to the subject of the dispute. When determining the amount, the court considered the minor complexity of the case, the number of prepared procedural documents (only a response to the cassation appeal) and court sessions (two sessions). The court also took into account that recovering legal assistance expenses cannot be a method of excessive enrichment of a party.
[Case No. 910/3551/24 dated 19/11/2024]
When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove…Exceeding of powers by the General Director when issuing a power of attorney. On the contrary, the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Joint Stock Companies” and the charter indicate that the General Director, as the sole executive body of the company, had the right to jointly issue such a power of attorney with the Financial Director. The court also noted that the court decisions cited by the plaintiff relate to dissimilar legal relations.
Case No. 127/30356/21 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict against a person convicted of illegal sale of the narcotic substance methadone. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the guilt of the convicted person is fully proven by witness testimonies, results of operational purchases and examinations; 2) there were no signs of crime provocation by law enforcement agencies, as their actions were “passive” and did not create artificial conditions for committing a crime; 3) all investigative actions were carried out legally and in compliance with procedural norms after entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. The Supreme Court left unchanged the ruling of the appellate court, which sentenced the person to 6 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property.
Case No. 461/852/24 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict against a person convicted of illegal acquisition and possession of psychotropic substances with the intent to sell. The court was guided by the fact that during the appellate review, a new law came into force, which excluded punishment in the form of arrest from the sanction of Article 309, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Since the new law improves the convicted person’s situation, it has retroactive effect. The appellate court should have taken these changes into account and imposed punishment in accordance with the new version of the article’s sanction, even if this issue was not raised in the appellate complaint. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint and changed the punishment under Article 309, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine from arrest to a fine of 17,000 hryvnias, leaving the final punishment of 8 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property unchanged.
Case No. 125/773/23 dated 26/11/2024
The court established that the convicted PERSON_6, being a conscripted serviceman during mobilization, received a referral for treatment but did not arrive at the hospital and did not return to the military unit, spending time at his own discretion. The court rejected the convicted person’s arguments that he should be recognized as a conscientious objector, as no evidence was provided of his deep religious or other convictions. The court also found no violations of the right to defense, as the convicted person was provided with the opportunity to have a defender at all stages of the process.
Case No. 910/18430/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – appealing the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine dated 03.10.2023 No. 48-r/tk by JSC ‘Zhytomyr Delicacies’. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the claim, and the appellate court supported this decision. The Supreme Court, having considered the cassation complaint, agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, although specific arguments are not provided in the given fragment of the decision. The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/13240/22 (910/5595/22) dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of additional agreements between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and PJSC ‘Forge at Rybalskyi’. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court from the provided text, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the motivational part, where the legal positions and court reasoning are usually set out. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint of PJSC ‘Forge at Rybalskyi’.At Rybalskyi, the court cancelled the decisions of previous instances and adopted a new decision to reject the claim, and also recovered court fees from the Office of the Prosecutor General in favor of the plant.
Case No. 914/1425/21 dated 13/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed property was alienated from the possession of the territorial community of the city against its will, as the Lviv City Council did not make any decisions on its alienation. The state registration of ownership by the defendant was carried out in violation of the law – contrary to the court’s prohibition on alienation of property. At the same time, the court noted that mere registration of ownership by another person does not deprive the true owner of the right to demand the return of property.
Case No. 906/392/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the debtor sent documents to the claimant by mail, but the claimant refused to accept them due to the discrepancy between the content of the shipment and the description of the enclosure, and the absence of the main document details. The courts were unable to reliably establish the fact of proper execution of the court decision by the debtor, as two mutually exclusive acts were drawn up regarding the content of the postal shipment, and the debtor did not provide the disputed shipment to the court or executor for verification. Moreover, the debtor did not fulfill the court decision within the voluntary execution period established in the enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 914/2576/23(462/5116/22) dated 20/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff acted unreasonably, delaying the consideration of the case for a year and a half through 17 court sessions; 2) the plaintiff did not provide any reasons for leaving the claim without consideration, except for a formal reference to such a right; 3) the defendant provided proper evidence of actual legal assistance and its cost.
Case No. 953/1091/22 (922/5144/23) dated 19/11/2024
The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court made procedural violations by not properly considering the petition to close the appellate proceedings and not providing an assessment of the party’s arguments regarding the missed deadline for appellate appeal. The court also did not ensure a comprehensive and complete review of the case, which is a violation of the principles of judicial proceedings and the right to a fair trial.
Case No. 925/424/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the temporary structure (pavilion) was illegally registered as a real estate object, as the owner did not provide the necessary documents for such registration. The court also took into account that this violates the rights of the territorial community as the landowner, as it provides an opportunity to illegally obtain land ownership outside the competition. At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that an effective way to protect the landowner’s rights in such cases is a negatory claim.
Case No. 912/1377/23 dated 27/11/2024
The subject of the dispute is a farm’s application for recovery of court expenses for legal assistance in the amount of 63,581 UAH from the State Budget of Ukraine. The court justified its decision by the fact that although the state is responsible for damage caused by illegal actions of state authorities, court expenses should be recovered directly from the defendant – the Main Directorate of the State Geocadaster, and not from the State Budget of Ukraine. Since the plaintiff requested recovery of expenses specifically from the State Budget, and not from the defendant-authority, the court could not independently change the plaintiff’s claim due to the principles of adversarial proceedings and dispositivity of the process. The Supreme Court denied the application for recovery of court expenses.Case No. 904/2439/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that a public organization does not have the right to file a civil lawsuit to protect the rights of a territorial community as the landowner. Although public organizations can protect environmental rights in accordance with the Aarhus Convention, in this case, the plaintiff did not prove that it was acting in the interests of society or its members, but was actually attempting to interfere with property relations between the city council and the municipal enterprise.
Case No. 917/2049/23 dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the triggering of the electromagnetic field influence indicator on the meter was recorded, which, according to the Retail Electricity Market Rules, does not require additional expertise to confirm the violation. The court also took into account that the 90-day review period for the act was not violated, as this period was suspended during the meter inspection by the manufacturer.
Case No. 905/55/24 (905/1201/23) dated 21/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) by Order of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 921-r, NAK “Naftogaz” was obliged to ensure uninterrupted gas supply to heat energy producers during the 2019/2020 heating season; 2) the defendant was included in the Register of the supplier’s consumers during the disputed period; 3) during the heating season, a heat supply organization cannot technologically discontinue gas consumption, as this may lead to an emergency situation.
Case No. 910/18430/23 dated 28/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) the fact of receiving the AMCU requirement by the company representative on June 8, 2021, was proven; 2) the company did not provide a response within the established 10-day period; 3) no petitions were filed to extend the response time; 4) the amount of the imposed fine complies with the law.
Case No. 918/1009/23 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of the agreement between OSBB ‘Pryberezhne’ and Individual Entrepreneur Belianovskyi R.Yu. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to determine the main arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the motivational part, where the court’s legal positions and reasoning are usually set out. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Belianovskyi R.Yu. and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
Case No. 910/12603/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – distribution of court costs in a case of penalty collection between SE “Boryspil International Airport” and LLC “KITVIS”. The court was guided by the fact that the dispute arose due to the incorrect actions of the defendant (LLC “KITVIS”), therefore, it would be fair to impose all court costs on it. The total court fee paid by the plaintiff in all instances is 81,027.93 UAH. The court applied the principle according to which court costs can be fully imposed on the party whose incorrect actions led to the dispute. The Supreme Court ordered LLC “KITVIS” to pay SE “Boryspil International Airport” the entire amount of the paid court fee of 81,027.93 UAH.
Case No. 910/13310/23 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of Additional Agreement No. 3 dated 30.12.2022 to the investment agreement, which increased the investment participation amount by 125.2 million UAH. The court established that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the failure to take interim measures may complicate or make it impossible…Regarding the execution of a future court decision. The plaintiff’s arguments were based solely on assumptions about possible fund transfers, which contradicts the presumption of lawfulness of a transaction. Moreover, the court noted that when deciding on the seizure of funds, it is necessary to maintain a balance between ensuring the execution of a decision and preventing the blocking of economic activity. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of lower courts on seizing the plaintiff’s funds and denied the application for securing the claim.
Case No. 915/187/22(915/136/24) dated 28/11/2024
The court noted that the heir did not have the right to challenge meeting decisions made before her entry into the company’s membership, as corporate rights arise only from the moment of acquiring participant status. Heirs inherit the right to a share in the authorized capital, not the organizational rights of the deceased participant. Moreover, the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (declaring the meeting decision invalid) would not restore her rights, as the property had already been sold to third parties.
Case No. 922/2921/24 dated 29/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that securing the claim by suspending the AMCU decision is essentially equivalent to satisfying the claim requirements, which is prohibited by procedural legislation. Moreover, the AMCU decision with the number being challenged was not even made regarding the plaintiff.
Case No. 918/1318/23 dated 19/11/2024
The appellate court, partially satisfying the claim, proceeded from the fact that the defendant’s failure to provide consent for land plot division violates the territorial community’s rights to formalize property rights to the land plot under its owned property. The court noted that consent must be provided by the land user (the school), not its founder. In this case, the school does not have discretionary powers to provide or withhold such consent, as it is not an authority entity.
Case No. 922/5336/23 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that to renew a lease agreement, proper performance of the tenant’s obligations is necessary, which can only be established after prolonged land use. However, the plaintiff applied for contract continuation in the second month after signing the previous supplementary agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff missed the contract-specified term for submitting a renewal application (no later than 2 months before the contract’s expiration).
Case No. 925/641/22 dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that at the time of concluding the disputed contract, the bank did not have property rights to the contested real estate, as it belonged to the plaintiff by ownership right. In fact, the bank sold only the right to file court claims regarding the property to a financial company, which is unlawful. The court also considered that such a contract violates the plaintiff’s rights as a real estate owner.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute: foreclosure on a mortgage object – a non-residential building divided into parts after being mortgaged. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) Previous instance courts did not properly investigate documents regarding registration and ownership transfer of the disputed object; 2) The circumstances of defendants acquiring ownership of disputed objects and their good faith as acquirers were not examined; 3) Courts made decisions about the rights of a person (NTPP ‘Dinas’) who was not involved in the case. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous courts.The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute – reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage object. The court of first instance partially satisfied the applications of six defendants for reimbursement of legal assistance expenses, recovering 5,000 UAH from the plaintiff in favor of each. The court took into account that the lawyer represented the interests of 17 defendants, filed identical procedural documents on behalf of all, spent insignificant time on the case (3 months), and participated in hearings via video conference. The court also noted that the lawyer’s arguments did not influence the final decision in the case. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances regarding reimbursement of legal assistance expenses, as it had previously canceled the main decision in the case. The issue of court expenses distribution should be resolved by the court that will make the final decision upon new consideration of the case.
Case No. 202/10407/22 dated 21/11/2024
The cassation instance court established that during the case consideration, a significant procedural law violation was committed – the defendant was not explained their right to a collegial review of the case by three judges, although this was mandatory, as the article’s sanction provided for imprisonment of more than 10 years. Additionally, the case materials lack a technical record of the court session, which is an unconditional basis for overturning the verdict. The appellate court did not provide proper assessment of these violations.
Case No. 910/14863/22 dated 28/11/2024
Subject of dispute – distribution of court expenses for professional legal assistance between parties in a case regarding invalidation of an international trademark registration. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of proportionality of legal assistance expenses and reasonableness of provided evidence of incurred expenses. The court took into account that part of the claimed expenses was not properly documented, and some claims were filed with missed procedural deadlines. The court also considered that some expenses were excessive and did not meet the reasonableness criterion. Based on the review results, the court partially satisfied the claims of LLC “ORHEI-VIT” regarding reimbursement of legal assistance expenses in the amount of 223,233.50 UAH, refusing to satisfy the remaining claims of all case participants.
Case No. 915/713/22 dated 26/11/2024
The court established that in the absence of a gas volume corrector, calculation should be carried out by bringing the meter readings to standard conditions according to paragraph 5, chapter 4, section XI of the Gas Distribution Systems Code. Meanwhile, the plaintiff erroneously believed that calculation should be made using average daily indicators according to paragraph 2, chapter 7, section X of this Code, which is applied only when dismantling the gas meter itself.
Case No. 907/883/22 dated 19/11/2024
The court established that the city council had legal grounds to terminate the land use right, as the plaintiff systematically did not pay land tax for an extended period (2017-2022). Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of tax payment or debt repayment. The mere disputability of the debt amount does not refute the fact of systematic non-payment of tax.
Case No. 925/641/22 dated 19/11/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that legal assistance expenses were actually incurred, theirTranslation:
The amount is reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case. The court took into account that the plaintiff provided all necessary evidence of expenses incurred – a legal assistance agreement, work completion certificates, and payment documents. The bank’s arguments about the impossibility of recovering funds due to its liquidation were rejected, as such expenses arise based on a court decision.
Case No. 915/447/21 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute: Removing obstacles to land plot use by demolishing unauthorized construction. The court was guided by the fact that the defendant (LLC “SYA BAO”) owns land plots on a permanent use basis, and this right has not been challenged by the plaintiff. At the same time, the land plot referenced by the plaintiff as leased does not currently exist, and the boundaries of the plot the plaintiff may use as a property owner have not been defined. No violations of land legislation were found in the defendant’s plot development. The court rejected the claim as premature – first, the defendant’s permanent land use right must be challenged and the plaintiff’s plot boundaries must be determined.
Case No. 922/1374/20 dated 28/11/2024
The subject of the dispute concerns reimbursement of legal expenses in a case of foreclosure on a mortgage object. The court was guided by the fact that an additional decision on court expenses is an integral part of the main court decision. Since the Supreme Court canceled the main decision in the case and sent it for a new review, the additional decision on court expenses should also be canceled. The court noted that the distribution of court expenses should be carried out by the court that will make the final decision based on the new case review. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the National Bank of Ukraine and canceled the appellate court’s resolution and the additional first instance court decision on expense reimbursement.
Case No. 910/3070/21 dated 19/11/2024
The court noted that to impose joint liability on the manager, it is necessary to establish the moment of insolvency threat and the fact of the manager’s failure to file a bankruptcy petition within a month. The manager may be exempted from liability if they prove they conscientiously attempted to overcome financial difficulties. The courts did not properly investigate evidence regarding the manager’s actions to improve the company’s financial condition.
Case No. 924/784/23 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – imposing joint liability for the debtor’s obligations in a bankruptcy case on the company’s manager and founder. The court noted that joint liability in a bankruptcy case has a tort nature and involves compensation for damages caused to the debtor due to untimely filing of a bankruptcy petition. The court emphasized that to impose such liability, it is necessary to prove not only the fact of violation of the filing deadline but also the existence of negative consequences of such violation for the debtor and its creditors. Lower instance courts did not properly investigate these circumstances. The Supreme Court canceled previous instances’ decisions and sent the case for a new review to the first instance court for a comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 922/500/24 dated 20/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the tenant (farming enterprise) properly fulfilled the contract conditions, timely applied for contract renewal and…
