Case No. 317/3658/20 dated 06/01/2025
The subject of review was a cassation appeal by the defense counsel against the first instance court judgment and the appellate court ruling regarding the accusation of a person for committing a series of criminal offenses. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, guided by the fact that the defendant’s actions in one episode require reclassification from theft to violation of housing inviolability. The court also took into account the expiration of statute of limitations for one offense (minor bodily injuries) and closed the proceedings in this part. When sentencing, the court applied the principle of absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court modified the previous court decisions, reclassified the defendant’s actions, and imposed a final punishment of 4 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 463/3646/23 dated 06/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal against the first instance court judgment and appellate court ruling in a criminal case regarding theft (Part 4, Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Court’s reasoning: Although the court rejected the convicted person’s cassation appeal, it drew attention to the fact that during the case review, the act was decriminalized – meaning the law under which the person was convicted has lost its validity. According to criminal procedural legislation, this is an unconditional ground for closing criminal proceedings, regardless of other case circumstances.
Court decision: The court canceled previous court decisions, closed criminal proceedings due to decriminalization of the act, and ordered the release of the accused from custody.
Case No. 587/1578/23 dated 19/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the victim is a person with second-group disability and suffers from a serious illness requiring avoidance of stressful situations. The convicted person’s unlawful actions led to disruption of the victim’s normal way of life and caused severe mental suffering. The court also considered that the compensation amount must correspond to the principles of reasonableness, balance, and fairness.
Case No. 439/1093/22 dated 19/12/2024
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court made significant violations by not providing proper assessment of the defense arguments regarding the absence of the qualifying feature of ‘penetration into a shelter’ in PERSON_8’s actions, and by not properly verifying the prosecutor’s arguments about the groundlessness of PERSON_9’s acquittal. The appellate court limited itself to a formal approach and did not provide motivated responses to the parties’ arguments.
Case No. 214/3465/19 dated 19/12/2024
Subject of dispute – appealing the court judgment regarding conviction for hooliganism with weapon use. The court recognized that the defendant’s actions were correctly qualified as hooliganism, as he acted with hooligan motives in a public place with many people, fired a pistol, and wounded the victim. The court did not agree with the defense’s arguments that this was a conflict based on personal animosity. The court also considered the correct imposition of actual punishment of 4 years of imprisonment, as the defendant did not admit guilt and did not compensate the victim for damages. The Supreme Court left unchanged the appellate court judgment, which sentenced the person to 4 years of imprisonment for hooliganism with weapon use.The court established that the dismissal was legal because: 1) a reorganization actually occurred at the enterprise and the position held by the plaintiff was liquidated; 2) the employer had no vacant positions that could be offered to the employee; 3) the procedure of notifying about dismissal two months in advance was followed. The fact that the employee was a combat participant was irrelevant, as preferential right to retain employment applies only when there are multiple employees in identical positions.
Case No. 582/332/21 dated 11/12/2024
Subject of dispute – declaring land lease agreements invalid, canceling their state registration, and returning the plots to owners. The court established that although the plaintiff did not sign the lease agreement and additional agreement (confirmed by expertise), actual lease relations existed between the parties, as the lessee used the plot and paid rent, which the owner accepted. The parties did not agree on a specific lease term but agreed to return the plot upon the owner’s request. Therefore, registering the lease agreement until 2038 violates the owner’s rights. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the claim – canceled the state registration of the lease agreement and obliged the lessee to return the land plot to the owner.
Case No. 520/18932/23 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that a pension is a monthly periodic payment, so the plaintiff could have learned about the violation of their rights in August 2021 when receiving the first pension without supplementary payment. Receiving a response letter from the Pension Fund in May 2023 does not change the moment from which a person should have learned about the rights violation. Since the plaintiff applied to court only in July 2023, they missed the 6-month court application period without valid reasons.
Case No. 990/356/24 dated 08/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the decision of the High Council of Justice and demanding certain actions. As only the introductory and operative parts of the decision were provided, it is impossible to determine the court’s specific arguments. The full text of the decision will be composed within five days after the case review. The Supreme Court, as the court of first instance, refused to satisfy the claim in full.
Case No. 826/9066/18 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff is a financial institution, therefore exempt from taxation on mortgage property sales according to paragraph 197.12 of the Tax Code; 2) the difference between the supply and purchase price of the property was only 34,190.86 UAH, which does not exceed the 1 million UAH limit for mandatory VAT registration; 3) the property belonged to non-VAT paying individuals.
Case No. 243/5431/19 dated 27/12/2024
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the testator himself removed himself from registration in one Fund department to transfer to another, but never registered in the new department; 2) the right to assign and pay insurance compensation is not part of the inheritance according to Article 1219 of the Civil Code; 3) only payments accrued during the testator’s lifetime but not received by them can be part of the inheritance.
Case No. 523/9588/19 dated 06/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence confirming that his mother could not sign the will due to…
