Case No. 916/5677/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the decision of the Southern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, which was adopted regarding LLC ‘Kaniv-SGEM’. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the Supreme Court’s resolution were provided, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the court in making its decision. However, based on the operative part, the court found significant violations of procedural law by the courts of previous instances, which became the basis for canceling previous court decisions. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of LLC ‘Kaniv-SGEM’, canceled the decisions of the first and appellate courts, and referred the case for a new review to the Commercial Court of Odesa Region.
Case No. 757/37682/23-k dated 19/11/2024
The court was guided by the following: 1) to confirm the powers of a defender, it is sufficient to provide a certificate of the right to legal practice and one of the documents – a warrant, contract, or power of attorney; 2) legislation does not require specifying the criminal proceedings number and the procedural status of the person in the warrant; 3) the appellate court should have first left the complaint without movement to eliminate deficiencies, rather than returning it immediately.
Case No. 751/626/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of the dispute: challenging the verdict against two patrol police officers convicted of official negligence that led to a person’s death. The court’s main arguments: 1) Police officers improperly performed their official duties when they left the scene of a conflict between a group of persons and the victim, who was in a state of alcohol intoxication, without proper response and termination of the conflict. 2) As a result of such inaction, the victim was killed, and moral damage of 394,875 UAH was caused to his wife, which is qualified as grave consequences. 3) Although police officers were not obliged to apply police care, they should have taken other measures to stop the conflict. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defenders, changing the verdict in terms of punishment – releasing the convicted from serving 2.5 years of imprisonment with a probation period of 2 years, but leaving their guilt in official negligence unchanged.
Case No. 761/14500/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning an appellate complaint against the first instance court’s verdict. Since the operative part of the decision lacks the court’s motives, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments that guided the Supreme Court in making its decision. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court left the defender’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the challenged appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 463/4026/23 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – the legality of convicting a person for attempting to steal food worth 308.46 UAH during martial law. The court was guided by the fact that on August 9, 2024, a new law came into force, which raised the threshold value of property for criminal liability. The Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court previously concluded that this law has retroactive effect and cancels criminal liability for petty theft. Since the value of the stolen property (308.46 UAH) was lessSince the text is a compilation of legal case summaries, I will translate each section:
1. The Supreme Court canceled the first instance court verdict and the appellate court ruling and closed the criminal proceedings due to the loss of validity of the law that established criminal liability for this act. Due to changes in legislation regarding the size of material damage, if the theft was less than 2 non-taxable minimum citizen incomes in 2022, the act ceased to be criminally punishable.
2. Case Subject – Cancellation of an arbitration court decision on debt collection under a supply contract and penalty sanctions from a guarantor. The court was guided by: 1) a valid arbitration agreement was concluded between the parties in the form of a clause in supply and guarantee contracts; 2) the applicant was a proper participant in arbitration proceedings as a defendant, so her argument about violating the rights of non-participants is unfounded; 3) case materials contain evidence of proper notification about the arbitration court hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ruling refusing to cancel the arbitration court decision, as it did not establish legal grounds for cancellation.
3. The court established that Judge PERSON_1 indeed violated the consideration terms of 39 administrative offense cases, which led to case closures due to expired liability periods. The judge did not take all possible measures for timely case consideration, and references to heavy workload cannot be sufficient justification. Meanwhile, the High Council of Justice did not provide motives for calculating disciplinary liability periods, considering more than 3 years passed between the misconduct and sanction.
4. The court was guided that according to points 1-6 of the Bankruptcy Code’s Final Provisions, bankruptcy proceedings cannot be opened if debts are not repaid due to property being on occupied territories. It does not matter when the debt arose – before or after the war’s start. What matters is the fact that the debtor’s entire property is located in combat or occupation zones, making normal bankruptcy procedures impossible.
5. When rendering the decision, the court was guided that: 1) the defendant’s guilt in causing serious bodily injuries and hooliganism is fully proven by victim and witness testimonies and expert conclusions; 2) the defendant’s self-defense version is refuted by the nature of inflicted injuries and other evidence; 3) due to legislative changes regarding material damage for theft, an episode involving stealing a bicycle worth 1,109 hryvnias ceased to be a criminally punishable act.
6. The court was guided that since the case is insignificant (claim amount does not exceed 100 subsistence minimums), a representative can be a person who is 18 years old and has civil procedural capacity – this is an exception to the general rule about exclusive…
(Note: The last section appears to be cut off)Legal Representation by an Attorney. The Representative of the MTSB of Ukraine, Butenko M.O., provided a proper power of attorney from the General Director to represent interests in judicial bodies, which is sufficient confirmation of her powers in a minor case.
Case No. 916/5139/23 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of the dispute – recovery of funds in the amount of 189,960 hryvnias and cancellation of an operational and economic sanction, as well as resolving the issue of distribution of court expenses for legal assistance. The court of cassation instance reviewed a complaint against an additional ruling of the appellate court regarding the distribution of court expenses for professional legal assistance. The Supreme Court concluded that there is a need for a new review of the issue of court expenses by the appellate court, as the previous decision on this matter requires review. Based on the results of the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the additional ruling of the appellate court, and sent the case regarding the distribution of court expenses for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 761/14500/23 dated 12/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – challenging the ruling of the appellate court on refusal to restore the missed term for appealing a verdict. The court was guided by the fact that the defense attorney missed the 30-day term for appealing the verdict by one day without valid reasons. The appellate court reasonably pointed out that the defense attorney had sufficient time (more than 2 weeks) to prepare a short appellate complaint on 3 pages. The specifics of the attorney’s work and their workload are not valid reasons for missing the procedural term, as they should have taken these factors into account when planning the submission of the complaint. The Supreme Court left the defense attorney’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 396/109/23 dated 19/11/2024
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the convicted person was previously not convicted, sincerely repented, tried to help the victim after the crime, has a minor child and an elderly mother under their care, actively participates in hostilities, defending Ukraine, and is positively characterized at the place of service. The court took into account as aggravating circumstances the commission of the crime in the presence of a child and against a spouse.
Case No. 243/12225/21 dated 26/11/2024
Subject of the dispute – termination of pledge agreements and restoration of deposit agreements, which were terminated by the bank due to a criminal offense committed by bank employees. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the fact of forgery of the plaintiff’s signatures on pledge and assignment of claim rights agreements has been established, confirmed by expert conclusions and a court verdict; 2) since the pledge agreements are void due to the absence of the plaintiff’s will, the termination of deposit agreements by the bank was also unlawful; 3) although the statute of limitations had expired, the court recognized the reasons for its missed term as valid, since the plaintiff received documents about the entry into legal force of a court decision in the criminal case only in 2021. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of lower instance courts and sent the case for a new review, as the courts did not properly investigate the issue of the beginning of the statute of limitations and did not evaluate all the circumstances of the case.
Case No. 910/16580/23 dated 20/The Court concluded that if information about a person authorized to act on behalf of a legal entity is entered in the Unified State Register, this is sufficient to confirm their authority to act in court on behalf of the legal entity. The court should not require additional confirmation of such person’s powers through the statute, regulation, or employment contract, as it can rely on the information from the Register as reliable.
Case No. 910/507/24 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – cancellation of operational and economic sanctions amounting to 2.24 million UAH imposed by LLC ‘Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine’ on LLC ‘Norma Plus’, and return of the respective funds. The court did not disclose its arguments in the operative part for cancelling previous instance decisions. However, referring the case for a new review usually indicates that previous instance courts did not fully investigate the case circumstances or allowed significant violations of procedural law that cannot be eliminated by the cassation instance court. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the Gas Transmission System Operator’s cassation appeals, cancelled all previous instance court decisions, and referred the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/762/24 dated 03/12/2024
Subject of dispute – recovery of debt amounting to 196,393.72 UAH by PJSC ‘Suputnyk Plant’ and a counterclaim to recognize obligations as terminated. Unfortunately, from the provided operative part of the decision, it is impossible to establish the court’s arguments due to the absence of the reasoning part. It can only be stated that the courts of first and appellate instances made decisions that did not satisfy FOP Ponkina O.V., as a result of which she filed a cassation appeal. The Supreme Court partially closed the cassation proceedings and left the decisions of previous instance courts unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of FOP Ponkina O.V.
Case No. 904/2573/22 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the state executor illegally recovered funds from the farm’s accounts based on a non-existent court order. The unlawfulness of the executor’s actions was previously confirmed in an administrative case. The court recognized the presence of all elements of a civil offense – the executor’s unlawful behavior, damage caused, and the causal link between them.
Case No. 910/2207/24 dated 27/11/2024
The courts of first and appellate instances returned the application, believing that the property manager has no right to file it since the creditor’s management bodies’ powers are not terminated. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that filing such an application by the property manager is the performance of their duty to protect the debtor’s property, as failure to file claims within the established period would result in their discharge. Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit the property manager from filing applications with monetary claims.
Case No. 990/106/24 dated 21/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that to participate in the competition for the position of an appellate court judge, the candidate must have not only a certificate of the right to engage in advocacy but also a documentarily confirmed 7-year experience of such activity in court representation.Based on the provided Ukrainian text, here is the English translation:
With these decisions, only 4 years of such experience (2017, 2018, 2022, and 2023) are present, which is insufficient for participation in the competition. The mere existence of a certificate of the right to practice law since 2007 is not proof of actual legal practice.
Case No. 373/448/22 dated 19/11/2024
Subject of dispute – legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding conviction for illegal weapon possession and hooliganism involving the use of a firearm. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the defense’s arguments regarding the absence of hooliganism elements in the defendant’s actions. In particular, it was not proven that the use of the weapon created a real threat to citizens’ lives or health. The court also did not properly verify the defense’s arguments about the qualification of actions and did not provide a detailed substantiation of its conclusions. Meanwhile, the court rejected the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence in the form of investigative experiment protocols.
As a result of the review, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and referred the case for a new review to the appellate instance court.
Case No. 350/1941/19 dated 07/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the convicted fully admitted their guilt, sincerely repented, and no aggravating circumstances were established. However, the appellate court did not apply Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides that in the presence of mitigating circumstances and the absence of aggravating ones, the punishment term cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term. The court also took into account that the absence of compensation for damages is not an obstacle to applying this article if such damages were not caused.
Case No. 350/1941/19 dated 07/11/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing against the verdicts of first and appellate instance courts regarding three persons convicted of illegal weapon handling, smuggling, and drug sales. The court partially satisfied the cassation complaints of the defenders, modifying the verdicts in terms of sentencing. The court applied Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for sentencing in the presence of mitigating circumstances. The court determined the final punishment for each convicted person by absorbing less severe punishments with more severe ones.
As a result of the review, the Supreme Court modified the appellate court’s verdict, sentencing each of the three convicted to 8 years of imprisonment with property confiscation.
Case No. 925/101/24 dated 20/11/2024
Subject of dispute – invalidation of a real estate complex purchase and sale agreement between LLC ‘Brewery’ and LLC ‘Cherkasy Beer’. The court declared the contract invalid as it shows signs of fraudulence – it was concluded to avoid paying a debt to the city budget for land lease. This is evidenced by the following circumstances: the contract was signed after court decisions on debt collection, between related parties (company founders are married), and the actual payment by the buyer was not proven. The Supreme Court upheld the previous instances’ decisions on declaring the contract invalid and returning the property to the original owner.
Case No. 337/3528/19 dated 25/11/2024Subject of Dispute: Review of Court Verdict Regarding a Person Convicted of Raping a Minor.
Main Court Arguments: The court found that the defendant’s guilt was fully proven by a set of evidence – testimony of the victim, witnesses, expert examination results, and physical evidence (video files from the defendant’s phone). The court rejected the defense’s arguments about procedural violations, as all investigative actions were conducted in compliance with legal requirements. A key argument was that the defendant was detained immediately after committing the crime, and the victim and witnesses identified him.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the first instance court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling, which sentenced PERSON_7 to 14 years of imprisonment for raping a minor.
Case No. 761/4387/24 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision that upheld the verdict of releasing from serving punishment with probation for a person convicted of illegal acquisition and possession of highly dangerous psychotropic substances. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not properly assess the gravity of the committed crimes, particularly because one of them belongs to the category of serious crimes. It was also not taken into account that the convicted person possessed psychotropic substances in especially large quantities, indicating an increased level of public danger. The appellate court did not provide convincing motives for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving punishment with probation). The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review, indicating that under such circumstances, release from serving punishment with probation is an incorrect application of the law.
Case No. 713/2185/23 dated 21/11/2024
Subject of Dispute – Appeal of the verdict against a person convicted of evading conscription during mobilization. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about violations of pre-trial investigation terms, as only one day passed between the return of the indictment to the prosecutor and its repeated submission to the court, within the remaining eight-day procedural period. The court also found no violations in the simplified case review procedure and rejected arguments about bias of the first instance court. The appellate court reasonably canceled the decision on release from serving punishment with probation. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of 3 years of imprisonment and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 457/227/16-ц dated 27/11/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the private executor acted within their powers and adhered to the legally established procedure for property valuation. It is important that the debtor did not use the legal right to review the property valuation report, which is the established method of challenging valuation results. All enforcement proceedings documents were properly sent to the debtor at the address specified in the enforcement document.
Case No. 752/21544/18 dated 27/11/2024
The first and appellate instance courts established a meeting schedule for the father with the child, without taking into account several important circumstances: the absence of a mandatory opinion from the guardianship and trusteeship authority at the child’s place of residence, existing conclusionsRegarding the first excerpt:
The courts did not examine the opinions of psychologists about the child’s negative attitude towards the father and their fear of him, nor did they clarify the child’s own opinion, which at the time of the case review had reached an age where they could express it. Moreover, the courts did not take into account the guardianship authority’s conclusion about the advisability of depriving the father of parental rights.
(Note: I have translated the first paragraph only, as requested. If you would like the full translation of all excerpts, please specify.)
