Case No. 444/2070/20 dated 28/01/2025
The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court approached the case formally – did not properly analyze all evidence and arguments of the prosecutor, in particular regarding contradictions in expert conclusions. The appellate court also assessed the expert’s testimony without examining the audio recording of the court session or conducting a repeated interrogation.
Case No. 280/2786/23 dated 30/01/2025
The appellate instance court suspended proceedings in the case, as a similar case regarding the prosecutor’s right to file such lawsuits was under consideration by the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recognized this decision as lawful, as it contributes to ensuring the unity of judicial practice, and the appellate instance court acted within its discretionary powers. Although later the Joint Chamber returned a similar case for a new review, at the time of making the challenged decision, the appellate instance court could not have known about this.
Case No. 600/4598/23-а dated 30/01/2025
The court noted that to correctly resolve the issue of ‘indexation difference’ payment, it is necessary to establish: the amount of income increase in March 2018, the amount of possible indexation in that month, and compare these values. If the income increase is less than the possible indexation amount, the employee is entitled to receive the difference between these amounts. The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate these circumstances.
Case No. 160/19545/23 dated 30/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the payment of additional remuneration to a serviceman in the amount of 100,000 UAH for direct participation in combat operations from May 3 to July 9, 2022. The court noted that to correctly resolve the case, it is necessary to precisely establish: what specific tasks the serviceman performed, where exactly he served, and whether there are appropriate evidence confirming the nature and place of these tasks. The courts of previous instances did not fully clarify these important circumstances, which made it impossible to objectively assess the legitimacy of the military unit’s actions regarding non-payment of additional remuneration. The court also emphasized that the mere fact of being on a business trip to perform a combat mission is not proof of direct participation in combat operations. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance to fully clarify all circumstances of the case.
Case No. 160/16361/21 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that according to the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”, documents confirming compliance with qualification criteria (in this case, acts of completed works) cannot be confidential. Since the bidder defined such documents as confidential, the customer was obliged to reject its proposal. The court also took into account that the control body had the right to demand termination of obligations under an illegally concluded contract, even if it had already been executed.
Case No. 910/881/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court of cassation instance found that the appellate court did not properly verify the defendant’s arguments regarding the incorrectness of the plaintiff’s calculation of inflation losses and 3% per annum after replacing projected volumes with actual ones. In particular, the issue of the legitimacy of accrual was not investigated.these payments as advance payments after signing the service acceptance certificates. The Supreme Court also noted the need to deviate from previous practice regarding the application of norms on deferred payment conditions for services.
Case No. 916/5208/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court established that LLC “Mriya-Katranka” had a court-recognized debt to creditors amounting to over 6 million hryvnias, but instead of satisfying their claims through bankruptcy proceedings, it dishonestly conducted voluntary liquidation. The company’s liquidator ignored the existence of creditors and submitted documents to the notary stating their absence, which contradicts the principle of good faith and violates creditors’ rights to satisfy their claims.
Case No. 683/1012/23 dated 23/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is determining the proper recipient of damages caused by illegal tree cutting along a state highway. The court was guided by the fact that the destroyed green plantations grew on a state-owned land plot and were components of the highway. Since the Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service is the permanent land user of this plot, and the trees were part of the road infrastructure – this Service, not the city council, has the right to compensation for the damage. This is confirmed by the fact that the land plot remains in the permanent use of the Service and has not been withdrawn.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service and ordered the recovery of 43,114.07 hryvnias from the accused in its favor, canceling the appellate court’s decision to recover funds in favor of the city council.
Case No. 918/412/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court established that the supplier had documentarily confirmed objective circumstances for extending the delivery period (issues with raw material supply and equipment failure), which allowed concluding additional agreements on postponing terms in accordance with the Law “On Public Procurement”. Since the goods were delivered within the terms determined taking into account additional agreements, there are no grounds for penalty recovery.
Case No. 420/2328/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that increased remuneration should be paid proportionally to specific days of participation in combat operations, not for full months, and must be confirmed by a set of documents (combat orders, combat journals, reports). At the same time, the court established that the border detachment incorrectly charged remuneration at 70,000 hryvnias instead of the due 100,000 hryvnias per month but did not investigate whether the plaintiff received the basic additional remuneration of 30,000 hryvnias for the same days.
Case No. 914/2450/22 (914/3193/23) dated 28/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is recovery from LLC “Magistr-D” in favor of LLC “BNK-Ukraine” of penalty sanctions (3% per annum, inflation losses, and penalties) for delayed payment for petroleum products supply contracts.
The court in rendering the decision was guided by the fact that the fact of goods supply and its final cost are confirmed by acceptance certificates and contract additions. The defendant received reconciliation acts but did not provide objections within the contract-specified period, therefore they are considered agreed. This provided grounds for determining the start of payment delay and accrual of penalty sanctions.
The Supreme Court canceled the resolution…The appellate court upheld the decision of the first instance court to recover from the defendant 108,485.28 UAH in 3% per annum, 338,140.31 UAH in inflation losses, and 1,755,123.07 UAH in penalties.
Case No. 380/13832/21 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that, according to the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1041 dated 16.09.2022, the functions of assigning and paying housing subsidies were transferred from social protection authorities to the Pension Fund authorities. Such public legal succession involves the transfer of administrative competence from one body to another, including the obligations to execute court decisions. In this case, the purpose of justice is to effectively restore violated rights, therefore, the obligation to restore a person’s rights is placed on the body currently competent to do so.
Case No. 906/780/24 dated 28/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that there are reasonable risks of impossibility of executing a potential court decision if construction continues on the disputed plot. The court took into account that active construction work may lead to the creation of a new object, which would significantly complicate the execution of a decision to return the land plot. The court also noted that the chosen measure of securing the claim is proportionate and does not violate the defendant’s rights to conduct economic activities.
Case No. 200/6795/20-a dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of budget compensation for value-added tax and penalties in favor of PJSC ‘Yenakiieve Metallurgical Plant’. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided, it is impossible to determine the main arguments used by the court. However, from the available text, it is evident that the case went through three instances, with both tax authorities and the plant itself filing cassation appeals against the decisions of previous instances. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of all parties, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 200/6795/20-a dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of budget compensation for value-added tax and penalties in favor of PJSC ‘Yenakiieve Metallurgical Plant’. Since only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided, it is impossible to determine the main arguments used by the court when rendering the decision. However, from the available text, it is evident that the case is complex, as evidenced by the presence of three cassation appeals from different process participants. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of all parties, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 120/7088/23 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute – payment of additional remuneration of 100,000 UAH to a Border Guard Service serviceman for direct participation in combat operations. The court noted that a military unit reference and reports may be sufficient evidence of a serviceman’s participation in combat operations, even if they have formal deficiencies. Lists of servicemen are only an element of the remuneration payment procedure, not the sole basis for its calculation. Violations of document transfer procedures between military units do not deprive the serviceman of the right to remuneration. The court also indicated that the duration of participation in combat operations does not affect the right to receive remuneration, if the fact andParticipation confirmed. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision on the refusal to pay remuneration and sent the case for a new review to fully clarify all circumstances.
Case No. 560/17801/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the State Emergency Service does not have a legally defined right to go to court with such claims, as its powers are limited only to applying response measures in the form of stopping the work of enterprises. The court also noted that the prosecutor did not prove the impossibility of protecting the state’s interests by the appropriate body and did not substantiate the grounds for his appeal to the court.
Case No. 910/13311/23 dated 30/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the asset management company had the right to sign an additional agreement without prior approval from the fund’s supervisory board, as such a restriction was not provided for by law, the asset management agreement, or the fund’s regulations; 2) the issue of approving already concluded contracts is an internal relationship between the fund and the asset management company and does not affect the validity of the contracts; 3) there is no evidence that the counterparty knew about the limitations of the asset management company’s powers.
Case No. 916/2786/23 dated 24/01/2025
The appellate court closed the proceedings, considering that the appellant has no right to appeal, as they did not provide a decision of the higher management body authorizing them to represent the company’s interests and were not formally recognized as a party to the case by the court’s ruling. The court also decided that the contested decision does not concern the appellant’s rights and obligations.
Case No. 158/1422/23 dated 28/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is appealing the court’s verdict regarding sentencing a person who caused a traffic accident while intoxicated, resulting in the death of two people. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the crime is especially grave and led to the death of two young people; 2) the accused was driving a vehicle while intoxicated without a driver’s license; 3) although the accused admitted guilt, they did not demonstrate genuine remorse, tried to shift part of the responsibility to others, and escaped from custody before the verdict was announced. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance court’s verdict, which imposed a punishment of 12 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 10 years.
Case No. 10/Б-5022/1383/2012 dated 22/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is the liquidator of the bankrupt LLC “Oscar” filing a claim for subsidiary liability on the former managers and participants of the company in the amount of 653,990.15 UAH due to driving the enterprise to bankruptcy. The court established that the managers and participants of the company committed a number of intentional actions that led to bankruptcy: they alienated all the company’s property (real estate, vehicles, pig herd) at undervalued prices, prematurely terminated land lease agreements, did not take measures to collect accounts receivable amounting to 1.2 million UAH. Moreover, they concealed documents about the company’s assets from the liquidator. All these actions collectively deprived the enterprise of the ability to conduct economic activities and settle with creditors. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of lower courts on satisfying the liquidator’s application.Liquidator and Imposition of Subsidiary Liability on Former Directors and Participants of LLC “Oscar” in Full.
Case No. 922/719/16 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the debtor’s account was used exclusively for crediting pension and social benefits, as confirmed by the statement; 2) according to the law of 26.03.2022, during martial law, recovery of pension is prohibited (with some exceptions); 3) imposing arrest on such a special account is unlawful.
Case No. 922/1903/18 dated 29/01/2025
The court denied the rehabilitation manager’s motion, based on the following: the rehabilitation procedure has been ongoing for over 4 years, which violates the legally established terms; the submitted documents do not show a real possibility of satisfying creditors’ claims within the planned timeframe; the investor has not provided evidence of concluding planned contracts and loading production capacities; the possibility of achieving rehabilitation goals has not been proven.
Case No. 260/304/22 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the appellate court’s ruling on refusal to open appellate proceedings on the tax service’s complaint. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court committed procedural violations by not properly examining the tax service’s motion to restore the appeal term. The appellate court incorrectly stated that no such motion was filed, although it was contained in the text of the appeal. The court also did not assess the tax service’s arguments regarding the valid reasons for missing the term. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for new consideration to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 916/2705/24 dated 31/01/2025
Subject of dispute – securing the claim by prohibiting the performance of a contract for major repair of a highway, concluded between the Infrastructure Restoration Service and LLC “ROSTDORSTROY”. The court concluded that prohibiting contract performance cannot be applied as a measure of claim security for three reasons: 1) it contradicts the presumption of transaction validity, as the contract is considered valid until declared invalid by the court; 2) such prohibition effectively blocks the economic activities of the contract parties; 3) prohibiting contract performance actually resolves the dispute on the merits before the court decision, which is prohibited by procedural law. The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s ruling on claim security and upheld the first instance court’s ruling denying claim security.
Case No. 442/685/24 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of dispute – legality of exempting from criminal liability a person who illegally cut down a tree in a national nature park by transferring them to the custody of a public organization. The court was guided by the fact that according to Article 47 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, transfer to custody is possible only to a collective of an enterprise, institution, or organization where the person works or studies. Since the accused was not in employment relations with the public organization and was not under its constant control, such an organization cannot be considered an appropriate collective for taking a person into custody. Lower instance courts incorrectly applied the law by allowing transfer to the custody of a public organization that does not meet the requirements of Article 47 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court revoked the decisionCourts of first and appellate instances reviewed the cases and referred the matter for a new consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 909/965/24 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – possibility of initiating bankruptcy proceedings for a credit union based on an application by its depositor after license revocation. The court was guided by the fact that although typically only the National Bank of Ukraine has the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings for a credit union, in this case the credit union had already lost its financial institution status before the new legislation came into effect. Since the credit union had not initiated reorganization or liquidation procedures for a long time, and the National Bank cannot apply a special liquidation procedure, depositors have the right to file a bankruptcy application on general grounds to protect their rights. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision allowing the consideration of the bankruptcy application for the credit union.
Case No. 905/1743/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court established that due to damage to its own networks, NEC ‘Ukrenergo’ transmitted electricity through DTEK networks, which caused additional technological electricity losses in DTEK networks. Since these losses arose from using DTEK networks for electricity transmission, and NEC ‘Ukrenergo’ receives compensation for such losses through tariffs, the court decided that these expenses should be attributed to NEC ‘Ukrenergo’, not DTEK.
Case No. 911/2/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery from JSC ‘Kyivoblgaz’ of expenses for professional legal assistance amounting to 503,597.14 UAH, including a fixed payment and a ‘success fee’. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that legal assistance expenses must meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality to the case complexity. The court considered that the case did not contain a large number of documents, the plaintiff’s position did not change, and the claimed expense amount was unreasonably inflated. Regarding the ‘success fee’, the court noted that it must correlate with the work actually performed and cannot automatically constitute a specific percentage of the claim value. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision partially satisfying the claims for legal assistance expenses in the amount of 50,000 UAH instead of the claimed 503,597.14 UAH.
Case No. 916/495/24 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of debt for supplied natural gas and penalty sanctions from a budgetary institution. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant is a budgetary institution financed from the local budget and is not a profit-making organization; 2) the plaintiff did not provide evidence of losses due to late payment; 3) negative consequences for the plaintiff were already compensated through recovery of 3% per annum and inflationary losses. Therefore, the court decided that reducing the penalty from 513,000 to 51,000 UAH represents a fair balance of the parties’ interests. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision to reduce the penalty amount, as such reduction corresponds to the principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Case No. 640/20619/19 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute – challenging the suspension of proceedings by the appellate court in a case regarding the dismissal of the Deputy Prosecutor General pending the Constitutional Court’s review of the law’s constitutionality. The court noted that the suspension of proceedingsConsideration of a case in the Constitutional Court is appropriate only when issues of an individual’s legal liability are examined. In other cases, declaring a law unconstitutional does not affect previously arising legal relationships. The Court of Appeal did not substantiate the connection between the expected decision of the Constitutional Court and the subject of the dispute and did not explain the impossibility of considering the case without the Constitutional Court’s decision. Moreover, suspending proceedings in cases related to public service creates legal uncertainty and may lead to excessive payments for forced absence from work. The Supreme Court canceled the Court of Appeal’s ruling on suspending proceedings and sent the case for a new review.
[Case No. 646/7414/17 dated 29/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is a review under exceptional circumstances of court decisions regarding PERSON_29 and PERSON_30 based on a decision of an international judicial institution. The court considered the defender’s applications for reviewing court decisions of three instances because an international judicial institution established Ukraine’s violation of international obligations in resolving this case. Since only the operative part is provided, specific court arguments are not presented, but the case was reviewed in the full composition of the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber with the participation of defenders, victims’ representatives, civil respondent, and prosecutor.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the defender’s applications unsatisfied, meaning previous court decisions remained unchanged.
[Case No. 400/4928/22 dated 30/01/2025]
The subject of the dispute is obliging LLC “Naval Park” to bring radiation shelter No. 52008 in Mykolaiv to proper technical condition. The court established that the State Emergency Service does not have a legally defined right to file a lawsuit about bringing protective structures to proper condition. Since the body in whose interests the prosecutor filed the lawsuit (Main Directorate of the State Emergency Service) lacks the authority to be a plaintiff in such category of cases, the prosecutor cannot represent its interests. The court also noted that in administrative cases, private persons can be defendants only in strictly defined legal instances, and this dispute does not belong to such cases.
The Supreme Court canceled previous instance court decisions and left the lawsuit without consideration because it was filed by an improper plaintiff.
[Case No. 990/143/24 dated 29/01/2025]
Subject of dispute: challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and demanding certain actions be taken.
Unfortunately, from the provided decision text (only introductory and operative parts), it is impossible to determine specific arguments the court used in making its decision, as the motivational part of the court decision is absent.
The court decided to fully reject the lawsuit.
[Case No. 120/3063/24 dated 30/01/2025]
The court noted that the military unit received the first instance court decision through the Electronic Cabinet of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System on July 15, 2024, but filed an appeal only on October 4, 2024. The military unit’s references to martial law, air raid alerts, and heavy workload were not recognized as valid reasons for missing the deadline, as a direct causal connection between these circumstances and untimely filing of the appeal was not proven.
[Case No. 918/437/23 dated 21/01/2025]
Subject of dispute: challenging state registration of ownership rights to a fire reservoir, declaring purchase and sale agreements invalid, and canceling the city council’s decision on land plot sale.The text appears to be incomplete. I can translate the first few paragraphs that are fully visible:
The cassation court established that the appellate court did not properly investigate all the circumstances of the case, in particular, it did not verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the non-compliance of the city council’s decision with land legislation requirements and did not take into account that the registration of property rights to a real estate object on a communal land plot creates obstacles for its owner in exercising rights. The appellate court also did not investigate the proportionality of the land plot area (0.3 hectares) with the area of the reservoir itself, which occupies only 3.4% of this plot. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate all circumstances.
Case No. 910/5810/24 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of debt for delivered goods, three percent per annum, and penalty under the equipment supply agreement. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) The defendant did not pay for goods worth 9.3 million hryvnias within the contract-specified time; 2) after the proceedings were opened, the defendant paid the main debt, therefore the proceedings were closed in this part; 3) for delayed payment, three percent per annum and a penalty are subject to recovery, the amount of which the court recalculated taking into account the actual delay period.
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous courts regarding the recovery from the defendant of 33,320.85 hryvnias of three percent per annum and 111.06 hryvnias of penalty, as these amounts were correctly calculated in accordance with the contract terms and law.
Would you like me to continue with the remaining text?If a contract for compensation of transportation costs for privileged passengers was concluded by the management, such a dispute should be considered in the administrative court procedure, not in the commercial court. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court previously formulated a clear criterion for jurisdiction separation – if there is a compensation agreement, the dispute is administrative, if there is no agreement – it is commercial.
[Case No. 362/1816/20 dated 30/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute – the prosecutor’s appeal of the appellate court’s decision regarding the qualification of the defendant’s actions for theft and the imposed punishment. The court established that part of the defendant’s actions were incorrectly qualified as theft (Part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code), as it actually constituted a violation of housing inviolability (Part 1 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code). In this case, the court took into account the need to impose a fair punishment considering the severity of the committed crimes and applied the principle of absorption of a less severe punishment by a more severe one when combining punishments for a set of crimes. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, re-qualified part of the defendant’s actions, and imposed a final punishment of 5 years and 5 months of imprisonment.
[Case No. 904/4157/20 dated 22/01/2025]
The court established that the liquidator did not prove the ownership of the disputed non-residential premises by the bankrupt, as the property right was registered for the territorial community. The court also found that the enterprise is a commercial municipal enterprise, and therefore, subsidiary liability cannot be imposed on its founder. Moreover, the liquidator did not provide proper evidence that the city council’s actions led to the enterprise’s bankruptcy.
[Case No. 902/1511/23 dated 28/01/2025]
Subject of the dispute: recovery of debt under the electricity purchase and sale agreement between JSC “NAEK “Energoatom” and LLC “Enera Vinnytsia” in the amount of 75 million UAH. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the universal services provider is obliged to pay for the received electrical energy regardless of the source of funds and without regard to their receipt from the previous participant in the mutual settlement chain; 2) orders of the Ministry of Energy do not change the terms of contract performance; 3) payment should be made in equal installments as a percentage of the total cost of electrical energy per month, not from the cost of registered volumes for each payment date. The court partially satisfied the claim and recovered 59.6 million UAH of inflation losses, 13.8 million UAH of 3% per annum, and 735 thousand UAH of court fees from the defendant.
[Case No. 320/8323/21 dated 29/01/2025]
The court recognized that the refusal was unlawful, as the ground for refusal (the plot being in use by other persons) is not provided by law as a basis for refusal. At the same time, the court cannot oblige the council to grant permission, as martial law is currently in effect, during which free transfer of communal property lands to private ownership and issuing permits for land management documentation are prohibited.
[Case No. 340/1899/24 dated 30/01/2025]
The court established that the plaintiff received an order to open enforcement proceedings on April 19, 2022, but applied to the court only in March 2024, significantly missing the 10-day period for appeal. At the same time, the plaintiff did not prove the valid reasons for missing the deadline.Regarding the term – the mere fact of martial law without evidence of specific obstacles is not sufficient grounds for term restoration, and ignorance of the violation due to one’s own indifference is not considered a valid reason.
Case No. 914/466/23(914/2764/23) dated 24/01/2025
The court was guided by the following: 1) the right to appeal is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, particularly regarding court fee payment; 2) provisions on fee exemption apply only to individuals, not legal entities; 3) the requirement to pay court fees does not violate the right of access to justice, as it is common to all process participants.
Case No. 916/5106/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court in rendering its decision was guided by: 1) the borrower violated the loan repayment schedule and contract terms regarding interest and commission payments; 2) defendants’ references to force majeure circumstances (Russian military aggression) require additional investigation into the causal relationship between these circumstances and the inability to fulfill obligations; 3) previous instance courts did not properly examine contract provisions regarding extension of performance terms in case of force majeure.
Case No. 620/14692/23 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute: A State Border Guard Service serviceman challenges non-payment of additional compensation of 100,000 hryvnias for direct participation in national security and defense measures. The court was guided by the fact that to receive such compensation, it is necessary to documentarily confirm direct participation in combat operations or measures according to the requirements of relevant State Border Guard Service Administration orders. The court established that previous instance courts did not conduct proper analysis of all case circumstances, particularly did not fully investigate evidence provided by the plaintiff and did not take into account changes in legal regulation of additional compensation payment during different periods. The Supreme Court canceled decisions of previous instance courts and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 920/604/23(920/1139/23) dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – invalidation of suretyship agreements concluded between LLC ‘SMNVO’ and PJSC ‘Prominvestbank’ regarding credit obligations of JSC ‘Sumy Research and Production Association’ for a total amount of over 61 million US dollars. The court noted that lower instances did not properly investigate case circumstances, specifically: did not clarify the economic content and actual purpose of the debtor taking on obligations for others’ debts; did not assess the fact of the debtor having significant tax debt at the time of suretyship agreements; did not verify the ratio of debtor’s assets and the amount of suretyship obligations undertaken. The court emphasized that any transaction made by the debtor during a period of debt to creditors should be questioned regarding its good faith. The Supreme Court canceled decisions of previous instances and referred the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 131/135/23 dated 28/01/2025
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the imposed punishment of 5 years imprisonment is minimal and fair considering the severity of the crime and the convicted person’s characteristics.2) There are no grounds for exemption from serving the sentence with probation, as the person is characterized negatively and continued to commit crimes after the first episode; 3) due to changes in legislation, two episodes of theft for amounts less than 2,481 UAH and 2,684 UAH, respectively, are no longer considered criminal offenses.
Case No. 910/1157/24 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute: recovery of debt under a supply agreement for abrasive products and penalty sanctions for violation of payment and delivery terms. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant acknowledged the main debt of 2 million UAH, which is confirmed by the case materials; 2) the plaintiff proved the fact of delayed payment for the delivered goods, which gives the right to recover 3% per annum and inflationary losses; 3) the defendant reasonably charged penalty sanctions for violation of delivery terms for individual batches of goods. The court satisfied the original claim for debt recovery, 3% per annum and inflationary losses, as well as the counterclaim for recovery of penalty sanctions for violation of delivery terms.
Case No. 920/999/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court established that the total amount of the enterprise’s debts (7.1 million UAH) significantly exceeds the value of its assets (2.8 million UAH). The property manager took all necessary measures to clarify the debtor’s financial condition – conducted an inventory of property, formed a register of creditors’ claims, convened a creditors’ meeting, which decided to proceed with liquidation. At the same time, no proposals for the debtor’s rehabilitation were received.
Case No. 520/28873/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court noted that the State Emergency Service and its territorial bodies do not have the authority to file such claims. Since the prosecutor designated an agency that does not have an independent right to file a claim, there are no grounds for the prosecutor to represent the state’s interests in court. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor cannot be an alternative subject of appeal to the court and replace the proper authority.
Case No. 560/17369/23 dated 30/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the State Emergency Service of Ukraine does not have the authority to independently file such claims, and therefore the prosecutor cannot represent its interests in court. The court also noted that the defendant in the case was determined to be a legal entity that is not an authority, which contradicts the requirements of procedural legislation.
Case No. 340/1765/23 dated 30/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that in reality, there was not a liquidation, but a reorganization of the state body through merger, since all functions and powers were transferred to the newly created interregional management. During reorganization, the employer is obliged to offer the employee another equivalent position, which was not done. The court also took into account that at the time of the case consideration, the body from which the plaintiff was dismissed had not legally ceased to exist.
Case No. 990/408/24 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the High Council of Justice’s decision was made based on a submission by the Supreme Court President, which was initiated by a decision of the judges’ meeting of the Druzhkivka City Court. At the same time, objective circumstances of impossibilityDifficulties in the administration of justice due to the proximity of the front line (15-16 km), regular shelling of the city, and threats to the safety of judges and court staff. The court also noted that the High Council of Justice’s decision-making procedure was followed, and the participation of the Supreme Court Chairman in the voting did not create a conflict of interest, as he is a member of the High Council of Justice by virtue of his position.
Case No. 910/299/24 dated 21/01/2025
Subject of dispute: invalidation of auction results for the sale of a special permit for subsoil use of the “Svaliava-1” deposit and related transactions. The court was guided by the following main arguments: 1) The plaintiff initiated the auction and then, having lost it, attempted to challenge its results, which indicates bad faith; 2) Legislation allows the use of land plots for subsoil use through the establishment of land easements, so prior approval from the local council was not mandatory; 3) According to the ECHR practice, the risk of errors by state bodies cannot be corrected at the expense of bona fide rights acquirers. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s resolution and upheld the first instance court’s decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 910/1106/24 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the following: 1) The leasing company did not know and could not have known about the limitations of the farm enterprise manager’s powers, as the publicly available version of the statute did not contain such restrictions; 2) The farm enterprise had been executing contracts for a long time – paying funds and lease payments, which indicates actual approval of the transactions; 3) The claim to declare the contracts invalid was filed only after the leasing company’s demands to return the equipment due to debt, which indicates the plaintiff’s bad faith.
Case No. 910/9030/20 dated 23/01/2025
When considering the case, the court was guided by the need to establish the legal nature of the disputed contract (whether it is a joint activity agreement, investment contract, or mixed contract), examine compliance with the principle of good governance by state authorities, and clarify the presence of the defendant’s legitimate expectations regarding contract implementation, which are subject to protection under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Case No. 380/1123/24 dated 30/01/2025
The appellate instance court returned the military unit’s appeal, considering that no evidence of sending a copy of the complaint to the plaintiff was provided. However, the Supreme Court established that such evidence (mailing description and fiscal receipt) was added to the appeal through the ‘Electronic Court’ system, but the appellate court did not notice and did not properly check the case materials.
Case No. 340/4412/24 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – non-payment of monetary allowance and other payments to a serviceman upon dismissal from military service. The court noted that cases concerning payments to servicemen should be considered taking into account the three-month period for applying to court, as provided by the Labor Code of Ukraine. The first instance court incorrectly returned the statement of claim without examining the plaintiff’s application to restore the missed period and without evaluating his arguments about constant communication with the military unit regarding payments. The court also did not take into account the special importance
