Case No. 522/9421/22 dated 16/12/2024
The Court of Cassation Instance noted that the courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly included the period between the closure of criminal proceedings and the cancellation of the closure order in the pre-trial investigation period. The Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, according to which such a period is not counted towards the pre-trial investigation period, as no procedural actions can be carried out during this time.
Case No. 545/903/22 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding the punishment imposed on a person who was driving a vehicle while intoxicated and caused a traffic accident with bodily injuries. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the imposed punishment of 1 year of imprisonment is fair and necessary, considering the degree of crime severity; 2) existing mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse, compensation for damage) were taken into account when assigning the minimum punishment term; 3) there are no grounds for applying a more lenient punishment than provided by law. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – credited the previously served community service to the convicted person’s punishment term, but left the rest of the verdict unchanged.
Case No. 581/454/21 dated 17/12/2024
Subject of dispute – the convicted person’s appeal against the appellate court ruling due to violation of their right to defense, as the case was considered without their and their defender’s participation. The court established that the case had been pending for a long time, court sessions were repeatedly postponed at the defense’s requests, and the accused and defender were properly notified about the date and time of the session. An air raid alert could not have prevented the defender’s participation, as the session began after its completion, and a dental visit certificate did not prove the impossibility of the accused’s participation in the session. The court also took into account that the participation of a defender or the accused was not mandatory in this case according to the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 607/21979/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision to mitigate the punishment for a person convicted of robbery and illegal drug possession. The court was guided by the fact that the convicted person: 1) fully compensated the damages to the victim, who requested a more lenient punishment; 2) sincerely repented and has a minor child to support; 3) participated in combat actions and received a severe wound while defending Ukraine. These circumstances collectively provided grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposing a more lenient punishment. The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s decision to reduce the imprisonment term from 7 to 3 years unchanged.
Case No. 278/776/17 dated 10/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecution did not prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – witness testimonies did not confirm the fact of taking fuel coupons, there were contradictions in the wording of the accusation, fuel cards were not properly accounted for, and their shortage was not detected during inventory. The amount of damage caused was also not properly proven.
Case No. 372/2188/23 dated 12/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court rulingIn a criminal case involving theft of property and official document forgery committed during martial law, the court established that the appellate court reviewed the case without properly notifying the defendant, who was in custody. The defendant was not sent a summons for the court hearing and was not given the opportunity to participate in the case review, which constitutes a violation of the right to defense. The court also did not properly verify whether other process participants were notified about the time and place of the court hearing.
The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and assigned a new case review, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure for the defendant in the form of detention for 60 days.
[Case No. 757/43195/18-k dated 12/12/2024]
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision, which left unchanged the first instance court’s verdict regarding conditional release of two persons convicted of theft. The Supreme Court established that the appellate court did not provide proper assessment of all case circumstances, specifically the gravity of the crime, presence of two qualifying features (prior conspiracy and home invasion), and formally approached the assessment of the defendants’ genuine remorse. The court also noted that the same circumstances cannot be used both for assigning minimum punishment and for exemption from serving it, and compensation does not significantly reduce the social danger of the committed act.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for new consideration, indicating that releasing the convicted persons from serving punishment under such circumstances contradicts the purpose of punishment.
[Case No. 499/268/23 dated 17/12/2024]
Subject of dispute – appeal of court verdict regarding conviction for traffic rules violation resulting in two deaths and severe bodily harm to a third person. The court was guided by the fact that the assigned punishment (7 years imprisonment) corresponds to the gravity of the committed crime and the convicted person’s character. Mitigating circumstances were considered, including guilt admission, partial damage compensation, and absence of previous convictions, as well as the crime’s severe consequences. The court also noted that the convicted person’s serious illness is not grounds for punishment exemption, as it was not proven that the illness prevents punishment serving.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower instance courts’ decisions, rejecting the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
[Case No. 910/3871/24 dated 20/12/2024]
The appellate instance court, having revoked the first instance court’s decision, concluded that it is necessary to impose arrest on the respondent’s immovable property, as in the event of filing a claim for monetary recovery, the respondent’s ability to dispose of their property is unquestionable, which may complicate future court decision execution. Moreover, the plaintiff is not required to provide evidence of the respondent’s intention to evade decision execution, as this would be an elevated proof standard.
[Case No. 630/554/23 dated 24/12/2024]
The court was guided by the principle that the owner of a source of increased danger (Ukrzaliznytsia) is liable for damage regardless of fault, unless they prove the victim’s intent or force majeure. Although the deceased violated safety rules and was in a state of alcohol intoxication, this does not exempt the respondent from liability but is considered when determining compensation amount. The court also took into account the depth of moral…Case No. 600/2119/21-а dated 26/12/2024
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the personnel commission regarding unsuccessful certification of a prosecutor and the order of dismissal.
Main Court Arguments:
1) Prosecutor certification is not a disciplinary proceeding, so the absence of criminal or disciplinary liability does not negate the grounds for doubts about integrity.
2) The task of the personnel commission is not to prove a violation of law by the prosecutor, but to determine the existence of reasonable doubts about their compliance with professional ethics and integrity requirements.
3) Previous instance courts did not fully evaluate the evidence and made premature conclusions regarding the groundlessness of the personnel commission’s decision.
Court Decision: The case has been referred for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of all case circumstances.
Case No. 260/1692/20 dated 26/12/2024
The court established that the plaintiff’s share in the cooperative is an investment asset, as an associate member with corporate rights. The tax authority improperly did not consider documents submitted by the plaintiff as objections to the inspection report before issuing tax notifications. Moreover, taxation of such operations should be carried out according to special investment income taxation rules.
Case No. 140/4231/23 dated 26/12/2024
The court noted that issuing a certificate of monetary support is one of the stages of implementing the right to pension recalculation, therefore such disputes are not subject to the 6-month limitation period for court appeal. The court emphasized that applying this period would make it impossible to exercise the right to pension recalculation, which, according to law, is not time-limited if the recalculation was not performed due to state authorities’ fault.
Case No. 140/3335/19 dated 25/12/2024
The court established that the Ministry of Defense missed the annual deadline for submitting an application for reversal of court decision execution. Although the agency referred to martial law as a valid reason for missing the deadline, the court noted that the mere fact of martial law is not an unconditional basis for deadline restoration. It was considered that active combat operations were not conducted in the locations of the parties, courts were functioning, and the Ministry of Defense’s legal service resumed work in August 2022, therefore the agency had the opportunity to submit the application in a timely manner.
Case No. 910/20143/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court rejected the claim for securing the lawsuit, as the measures proposed by the plaintiff (prohibition of new OSBB meetings) do not have a direct connection to the subject of the dispute and are not proportionate to the stated requirements. The court emphasized that lawsuit security measures should only relate to the contested meeting decisions, not future OSBB meetings. The court also considered that such measures might violate the rights of other co-owners who are not parties to the process.
Case No. 520/10042/23 dated 26/12/2024
Subject of Dispute – Tax service’s recovery of funds from KP ‘Kharkivvodokanal’ bank accounts. The first and appellate instance courts made decisions unsatisfactory to the tax service, after which it filed a cassation appeal. Unfortunately, from the provided abbreviated text of the decision, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments used by the Supreme Court in making its decision.Since the motivating part is absent, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the tax service’s cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 597/432/22 dated 25/12/2024:
The court established that the plaintiff knew about the house reconstruction in 2005-2007, personally received the disputed decision on share changes in April 2008, but did not challenge it for 14 years. The court also took into account that the plaintiff, together with the defendant and daughters, applied for consent to conduct apartment extension, which indicates her awareness of the reconstruction.
Case No. 130/791/23 dated 25/12/2024:
The court established that when developing the land management project for land allocation, the developer violated legal requirements by not reflecting information about buildings and structures belonging to the plaintiff within the plot. This is confirmed by the forensic expert opinion. Since the land management documentation was compiled in violation of legal requirements, it could not be approved, and the information in the State Land Cadastre regarding this plot is unreliable.
Case No. 344/24144/23 dated 25/12/2024:
The subject of the dispute is the illegal removal and retention of a minor child from Hungary to Ukraine without the father’s consent. The court was guided by the fact that the child had permanently resided in Hungary since birth, where they had appropriate care and medical service. The mother arbitrarily, without the father’s consent, took the child to Ukraine, thereby violating his parental rights and the child’s right to be raised by both parents. The defendant did not prove the existence of grounds for refusing to return the child under the Hague Convention, particularly the risk of psychological or physical danger to the child upon return. The court recognized the child’s removal as illegal and obliged the mother to return the child to their permanent place of residence in Hungary, noting that the mother has the right to apply to the Hungarian court regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence.
Case No. 206/5280/21 dated 24/12/2024:
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that expenses for professional legal assistance are subject to distribution between parties based on the case review results. The court considered the criteria of the reality of provided legal services, their necessity, and the reasonableness of the amount, taking into account the case complexity. An important factor was that the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was left unsatisfied, and therefore legal assistance expenses should be compensated by the party that lost the dispute.
Case No. 240/35635/23 dated 26/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that amendments to legislation introduced by Law No. 1584-IX established lower pension amounts than previously provided. This violates the right to an appropriate level of social protection and the state’s obligation to compensate victims of the Chornobyl disaster. Therefore, the court decided to apply the law provisions in the version providing pension payment at 8 minimum age pensions.
Case No. 240/719/24 dated 26/12/2024:
The court was guided by the fact that amendments to legislation introduced by Law No. 1584-IX established lower pension amounts than previously provided, which violates the right to an appropriate level of social protection for Chornobyl disaster victims.The court decided to apply the law in the previous version, which provided for the payment of a pension in the amount of 10 minimum pensions by age.
Case No. 120/14435/21-а dated 26/12/2024
The court established that the employer (Office of the Prosecutor General) is obligated to immediately execute the decision on reinstatement of the employee, regardless of their application or other actions. Delay in executing the court’s reinstatement decision (from October 2020 to September 2021) entails the obligation to pay average salary for the entire delay period. Moreover, the employee’s possession of a certificate for advocacy does not prevent their reinstatement to the prosecutor’s position.
Case No. 320/23655/23 dated 26/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is challenging the State Consumer Service’s resolution on imposing a fine on a restaurant for providing hookah services and displaying hookah information in the menu. The court was guided by the fact that since July 11, 2022, there has been an absolute prohibition on using hookahs in catering establishments. Providing hookah services in a restaurant is considered stimulating tobacco product sales, which is prohibited by law. Additionally, catering establishments are not allowed to place hookah information in menus or on posters, as they are not places of permitted tobacco product trade. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and rejected the restaurant’s claim, recognizing the fine imposed by the State Consumer Service as lawful.
Case No. 520/10042/23 dated 26/12/2024
The court noted that the tax authority has the right to collect debt by court decision according to Article 95 of the Tax Code, and only after unsuccessful collection, apply the special debt repayment procedure for communal enterprises under Article 96. Lower instance courts erroneously decided that Article 96 should be immediately applied without investigating the possibility of collection through the standard procedure. The courts also did not consider that the moratorium on debt collection during martial law applies only to debt incurred before 24.02.2022.
Case No. 320/4789/24 dated 26/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the prosecutor missed the statutory three-month period for court appeal, which should have been calculated no later than June 2021 – when the prosecutor’s office received relevant documents upon its request, or from August 2021 – when the criminal proceedings were opened. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s reference to obtaining permission to disclose pre-trial investigation information only in September 2023 cannot be considered a valid reason for missing the deadline.
Case No. 621/1091/24 dated 26/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the applicant essentially challenges the existing birth record where another man (PERSON_4) is listed as the father. Since there is already a father’s record in the documents, a rights dispute arises that cannot be considered in separate proceedings. Such cases must be considered in lawsuit proceedings, as they affect the rights and interests of another person recorded as the father.
Case No. 209/2893/22 dated 25/12/2024
The appellate court rejected the application because the applicant did not prove that they are a family member or close relative of the person they requested to be declared incapacitated.
