Case No. 174/488/24 dated 10/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that establishing labor experience should be carried out in an out-of-court procedure through the bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine. Such facts are not subject to judicial determination, and the decision of the Pension Fund can be appealed in the manner prescribed by law.
Case No. 910/12017/23 dated 14/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the supplier had indeed delayed the delivery of goods, which gave the buyer the right to charge penalties amounting to 1,802,000 UAH and withhold them from payment in accordance with the contract terms. However, the amount of 79,500 UAH was withheld by the buyer without grounds, as it exceeded the amount of legitimately accrued penalties. The court also took into account that the buyer’s incoming goods control procedure does not affect the determination of the delivery moment, as it is outside the supplier’s control.
Case No. 444/373/18 dated 13/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the will was drawn up in writing and properly certified by the village council secretary; 2) due to the testator’s illness (blindness), the document was signed by another person on their behalf in the presence of two witnesses; 3) the text of the will was read aloud, which is confirmed by the witnesses’ signatures, and the testator’s identity was properly established by passport.
Case No. 910/10430/23 dated 14/01/2025
The appellate court, guided by the position of the United Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, concluded that the guaranteed buyer is obliged to make a 100% payment for electricity supplied at the “green” tariff, despite the martial law. Orders No. 140 and No. 206 of the Ministry of Energy do not limit the producer’s rights to receive the full cost of sold electricity and do not change the terms of monetary obligations. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions.
Case No. 910/10430/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery of funds from SE ‘Guaranteed Buyer’ in favor of LLC ‘Solar Golden Keys’. 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 reasoning part, where legal positions and court justifications are usually set out. The Supreme Court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of SE ‘Guaranteed Buyer’ and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged, which apparently satisfied the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 755/10941/22 dated 08/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that although the accused committed a crime on the same day (September 27, 2022) when he was convicted of a similar crime in another proceeding, the prosecution did not prove that the new offense was committed after the first verdict. Since the exact time of the first verdict is not established, and the new offense was committed between 13:00 and 13:10, it is impossible to assert that it was committed within a year after conviction. Therefore, the court decided that there are no grounds for qualifying the actions under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (repetition).Case No. 758/13570/20 dated 08/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff’s expenses for professional legal assistance must be real and reasonable, taking into account the complexity of the case, the volume of services provided, and the financial status of both parties. The court took into account that the plaintiff represents the interests of minor children, and the defendants are elderly pensioners, as well as the defendants’ substantiated objections regarding the amount of expenses.
Case No. 916/754/24 dated 14/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court prematurely refused to exempt from court fees and returned the appellate complaint without consideration, as it did not investigate the legal nature of the dispute. In particular, it was not taken into account that the public organization acts in the interests of individuals – its members who may be consumers of the defendant’s services, and therefore potentially have the right to be exempt from court fees in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Consumer Protection”.
Case No. 911/44/24 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the amount of 25,000 UAH, incurred in connection with the cassation review of the case.
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff provided evidence of expenses for legal assistance (contract, act, payment order); 2) the plaintiff’s legal position in courts of different instances was similar and did not require a significant amount of additional legal work; 3) some services included in the acceptance certificate were not actually provided by the lawyer. Therefore, the court decided that the claimed amount of 25,000 UAH is disproportionate to the volume of services provided.
The court partially satisfied the application and recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff 2,000 UAH of expenses for professional legal assistance, which it considered proportionate to the work performed in the cassation instance court.
Case No. 300/3363/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the state cannot reduce the previously established level of social protection for Chornobyl victims. Although the Verkhovna Rada adopted a new law that established lower pension amounts, such changes contradict the Constitution of Ukraine and the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The disputed legal relations should be governed by the law in the 1996 edition, which provided for higher pension amounts.
Case No. 580/3286/24 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging tax authority decisions refusing registration of adjustment calculations for tax invoices.
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff missed the 6-month term for appealing tax authority decisions; 2) the introduction of martial law in itself is not a valid reason for missing the term without proving a direct causal relationship; 3) the plaintiff did not prove how the damage to their gas station and storage of documents in an archival institution prevented timely appeal to court.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to leave the claim without consideration due to missing the term for appealing to court.
Case No. 758/8848/19 dated 13/01/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal by a prosecutor against court decisions regarding a person accused of committing criminal offenses related to abuse of power and obstruction of activities.
The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the resolution…Having only heard that the full text of the decision will be announced later. However, from the qualification of crimes (Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 365, Part 2 of Article 346, Part 1 of Article 351, Article 340 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), it can be concluded that the case concerns group commission of crimes related to abuse of power and interference with the activities of state bodies. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the first and appellate courts, refusing to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/11751/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – obligation of the defendant to take the order-made goods and recover the debt for it. When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) there were long-term business relations between the parties for manufacturing metal products according to the defendant’s drawings; 2) the defendant made partial payment for the manufactured goods, as confirmed by payment orders; 3) electronic correspondence between the parties confirms the fact of goods ordering and manufacturing by the plaintiff. The court partially satisfied the claims – obliged the defendant to take the goods and recovered the debt, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
Case No. 911/1689/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court, when making a decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) expenses must be real and necessary; 2) their amount must be reasonable and proportionate to the complexity of the case; 3) the defendant’s legal position was consistent throughout the case consideration and did not require a significant amount of additional legal work in cassation.
Case No. 925/1577/20(925/291/23) dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the bank did not prove that the challenged court decision directly relates to its rights and obligations – neither the motivational nor the operative part of the first instance court decision contained any conclusions regarding the bank’s rights. The fact that the bank is the pledgee of the disputed property under a contract concluded later than the disputed transactions does not give it the right to appeal the court decision as a party not involved in the case.
Case No. 910/9568/24 dated 13/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff (heir) acquired property rights as an individual, not as an entrepreneur. The status of an individual entrepreneur does not automatically transfer to heirs, so the dispute does not have signs of economic legal relations. The court also took into account that for determining jurisdiction, the subject composition of the parties and the nature of legal relations are important.
Case No. 761/41038/18 dated 08/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff, after receiving an apartment and terminating labor relations with BU DUS, lost legal grounds for obtaining housing in a dormitory. The court also took into account that the plaintiff is not registered in the list of persons requiring housing conditions improvement, and the housing registration at BU DUS is currently not maintained. At the same time, the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of violation of his rights in providing housing to other persons.
Case No. 902/884/21 dated 15/01/2025
Subject of dispute: replacement of the debtor in enforcement proceedings in connection with privatization of a state-owned enterprise. The court was guided by the fact that after privatization of the sole property complexAt the state enterprise ‘Murafsky Quarry’, its buyer – LLC ‘Construction Company ‘New Minerals” became the legal successor of all property rights and obligations of the privatized enterprise in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On Privatization of State and Municipal Property’. The court also took into account that the privatization was completed, as evidenced by the signed acceptance and transfer act of the property complex and the corresponding order of the State Property Fund. At the same time, the existence of an open enforcement proceeding does not prevent the replacement of the debtor by its legal successor. The Supreme Court partially modified the decisions of lower courts, specifying that the debtor’s replacement should occur in the enforcement proceeding, not in the court order, since the enforcement proceeding was already initiated.
[Case No. 910/247/24 dated 13/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that the provision of transportation services is confirmed not only by primary documents (which had registration defects) but also by other evidence – acts of petroleum products acceptance and the defendant’s acknowledgment of cargo receipt. The court also recognized as lawful the inclusion of transportation costs to the loading site in the service price, as this is an integral part of the transportation service.
[Case No. 910/11751/23 dated 14/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is the obligation to perform certain actions and recovery of 710,381.04 UAH from Private Enterprise ‘Khladoyug Service’ in favor of LLC ‘MR’. The court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, as the decisions of previous court instances were legal and substantiated. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the resolution, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as only the operative part of the decision is presented without the reasoning part. The Supreme Court decided to leave unchanged the decisions of the first and appellate court instances, which satisfied the claim.
[Case No. 917/1244/23 dated 13/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that the list of rulings that can be appealed separately from the court decision is defined in Article 255 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that paragraph 14 of part 1 of Article 255 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine relates only to the right to appeal rulings on leaving a statement of claim without consideration, and not any other statement or motion. The court also noted that a ruling on leaving a response without consideration does not impede further proceedings in the case, and objections to it can be included in the appeal against the decision on the merits of the dispute.
[Case No. 401/268/21 dated 13/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is appealing against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder and robbery. The court did not provide detailed arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. However, the decision shows that the court found no grounds for canceling or modifying the appellate court’s verdict, which convicted the person under part 1 of Article 115 (intentional murder) and part 2 of Article 186 (robbery) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court left the Kropyvnytskyi Appellate Court’s verdict unchanged and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
[Case No. 240/9188/24 dated 14/01/2025]
The court was guided by the fact that a lawyer’s vacation is not a valid reason for missing the deadline for appellate appeal, because: 1) the lawyer had the possibility1) the ability to file a complaint before the leave; 2) the client could have contacted another lawyer; 3) the existence of insurmountable circumstances that would make timely filing of the complaint impossible was not proven.
Case No. 520/27498/21 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute: challenging the decision of the State Architectural and Construction Inspectorate (DABI) to suspend the urban planning conditions and restrictions for the construction of a multifunctional complex in Kharkiv. The court was guided by the following arguments: 1) DABI had legal powers to suspend urban planning conditions based on construction supervision results; 2) Previously, the court had already found DABI’s claims about the lack of specific indicators in urban planning conditions groundless; 3) The urban planning conditions contained sufficiently specific parameters regarding distances and restrictions. The Supreme Court partially modified the decisions of previous instances in terms of motives but maintained the conclusion about the illegality of DABI’s decision to suspend urban planning conditions.
Case No. 336/6542/21 dated 13/01/2025
The court established that the bank did not prove by proper evidence the coordination with the borrower of the interest rate and other payments, as the application form did not contain these conditions, and extracts from bank rules on the website cannot be considered part of the contract, as they can be changed by the bank unilaterally. The consumer loan passport is also not a confirmation of agreeing on essential contract terms, but merely an informational document.
Case No. 924/1351/20 (924/214/22) dated 13/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the actions of state executors regarding the execution of a court decision on vacating non-residential premises. The cassation instance court found that the courts of previous instances did not provide proper assessment of the complainant’s arguments regarding the violation of the enforcement proceeding procedure. In particular, the fact of proper notification of enforcement proceeding participants was not verified, the absence of witnesses when drawing up acts, and the validity of collecting enforcement fees in the absence of debtors and their property in the premises. The courts also did not investigate all circumstances of the case and available evidence. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instance courts 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. 922/1181/24 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – collection of a penalty by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine from LLC ‘Bohodukhiv Milk Plant’ in favor of the state budget. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to collect a penalty of over 9.5 million hryvnias. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that there were legal grounds for collecting this amount from the enterprise. Unfortunately, from the provided text of the decision, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as only the operative part is presented. Based on the case review results, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint of the Antimonopoly Committee and collected a penalty of 9,580,243.10 hryvnias from LLC ‘Bohodukhiv Milk Plant’, as well as court expenses totaling approximately 486,000 hryvnias.
Case No. 916/2714/23 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of additional agreements to the electricity supply contract and return of unjustly paid funds by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of state bodies against the electricity supply company. The court reviewed the cassation complaint of LLC ‘Odes…Regional Energy Supply Company’s appeal against the lower instance court decisions. The court established grounds for closing the cassation proceedings in part of one of the grounds for appeal (paragraph 1, part 2, Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code). Regarding the other ground for appeal (paragraph 3, part 2, Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code), the court did not find arguments for canceling previous court decisions. The Supreme Court partially closed the cassation proceedings and rejected the cassation complaint in the other part, leaving the decisions of the first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 463/3646/23 dated 06/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appealing a court verdict regarding the conviction of a person for theft of goods from stores for a total amount of about 1,700 hryvnias during martial law. When making the decision, the court was guided by the fact that after the issuance of the challenged decisions, a new law No. 3886-IX came into force, which decriminalized petty theft of property worth less than 2,684 hryvnias (as of 2023). Since the value of the stolen goods in each episode was significantly less than this amount, the actions of the accused are no longer considered a criminal offense but an administrative offense. The court also took into account that the convicted person gave consent to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the decriminalization of the act.
The Supreme Court canceled the previous court decisions and closed the criminal proceedings due to the loss of force of the law that established criminal liability for the committed actions.
Case No. 689/1207/21 dated 08/01/2025
The court established that although the lease agreement was not signed by the owner personally, the farm enterprise actually used the plot for 6 years (2007-2012) and paid rent, which the owner accepted. At the same time, the owner acted in bad faith – first recognizing the lease relations and receiving payment, and then trying to challenge the contract, concluding lease agreements with other persons and creating situations where the lessee could not use the plot.
Case No. 240/709/24 dated 14/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that according to the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 07.04.2021 No. 1-r(II)/2021, the state cannot reduce the previously established level of social protection for Chernobyl victims. Since the new law No. 1584-IX established significantly lower pension amounts than previously guaranteed, the previous version of the law, which provided for the payment of a pension in the amount of 6 minimum pensions by age, should be applied to the disputed legal relations. The court also took into account that the state’s social obligations to citizens affected by the Chernobyl disaster cannot depend on the state’s financial capabilities.
Case No. 460/12527/23 dated 14/01/2025
The court established that the tax authority unreasonably concluded that the entrepreneur was conducting activities not specified in the single tax payer registry (retail trade outside stores). The tax authority did not provide proper evidence of violations, and its conclusions were based only on assumptions. Instead, available evidence (bank statements) confirmed wholesale, not retail trade.
Case No. 280/9045/24 dated 14/01/2025
Subject of dispute – securing the claim by suspending the decision of the tax authority to cancel the registration of LLC “Gigabit GP” as a single tax payer
