Case No. 539/8/24 dated 31/01/2025
The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff did not provide proper and admissible evidence to confirm family relations with the testator. In particular, it was not proven that the testator’s great-grandmother and grandmother were biological sisters, and therefore it was impossible to establish the further degree of kinship. The court also noted that witness testimony alone was insufficient to establish the fact of family relations.
Case No. 461/3295/21 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – termination of a lifetime maintenance agreement and cancellation of state registration of apartment ownership. The cassation instance court, when rendering the main decision, did not resolve the issue of court costs allocation. Since the cassation appeal of PERSON_3 was satisfied (the appellate court’s ruling was canceled, and the first instance court’s decision was upheld), the court decided that the court fee for filing the cassation appeal should be recovered from the plaintiff’s legal successor. The court took into account that the defendant had paid a court fee of 1,816.00 UAH when filing the cassation appeal. The court issued an additional ruling by recovering a court fee of 1,816.00 UAH from the plaintiff’s legal successor in favor of the defendant.
Case No. 757/26553/21-c dated 29/01/2025
Subject of dispute – legality of employee dismissal following a probation period from the position of internal security department manager at Ukrzaliznytsia JSC. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court committed a significant procedural law violation by considering the case without notifying participants through written proceedings. Since the claim contained both property claims (salary recovery) and non-property claims (declaring the dismissal order illegal), the case should have been considered with the parties summoned to a court session. Such a violation deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to properly represent their interests. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court to comply with the proper case consideration procedure with participant notification.
Case No. 727/1439/22 dated 29/01/2025
The court, in resolving the case, was guided by the following: 1) a conflict arose between co-owners regarding apartment use, which makes voluntary establishment of usage procedure impossible; 2) it is technically impossible to divide the apartment in kind according to shares; 3) the expert’s proposed option for space distribution considers the interests of both co-owners with a minimal (8%) deviation from ideal shares.
Case No. 727/348/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove ownership of the disputed pavilion, as she did not provide permit documents for its placement (temporary structure location passport). The court also took into account that the pavilion’s area (116 sq.m) significantly exceeds the legally allowed 30 sq.m for temporary structures, and according to the expert examination, the pavilion’s actual characteristics do not correspond to…Here is the translation of the legal text into English:
The court of cassation instance noted that the appellate court, in satisfying the claim, did not assess an important argument of the defendant regarding the plaintiff’s missed statute of limitations. In particular, it was not clarified from what moment the plaintiff could have learned about the violation of her rights, when the statute of limitations began to run, and whether it had expired by the time of filing the claim. The court also did not evaluate the plaintiff’s explanation that she could not file a claim until the completion of another court proceeding.
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) amendments are possible only to an existing contract that is in effect at the time of applying to the court; 2) the validity of the supply contracts expired on 31.12.2023, i.e., before the plaintiff’s claim; 3) the public procurement contract can only be extended when its term has not expired.
The court established that the supplier (plaintiff) had no right to return the security payment because: 1) the contract provided for the return of payment only after full performance of the contract or recognition of the procurement as invalid; 2) the supplier did not fully complete the contract; 3) the consumer’s refusal to increase the price is not considered termination of the contract on their initiative.
Subject of the dispute: recovery from LLC “Antares Agro-P” of debt under the supply contract, including 36% per annum, interest for using a commodity credit, and penalty. The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) interest for using a commodity credit is, by its legal nature, a debt, not a penalty, therefore its amount cannot be reduced by the court; 2) penalty and 36% per annum are penalty sanctions, the amount of which can be reduced by the court taking into account specific circumstances of the case; 3) the court’s reduction of the penalty and 36% per annum by 90% is justified given the debtor’s behavior, who attempted to fulfill his obligations, and the absence of evidence of real creditor’s damages. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – canceled the decisions of previous instances regarding the reduction of interest for using a commodity credit and recovered them in full (2.5 million hryvnias), leaving unchanged the decision to reduce the penalty and 36% per annum.
The court was guided by the fact that there is an unresolved dispute between the parties regarding the amount of debt under supply contract No. 1300028292 – the applicant claims a debt of 25.8 million hryvnias, while the debtor disputes this and points to the applicant’s counterclaim debt of 4.4 million hryvnias. Moreover, these issues are already the subject of consideration in other court cases. Under such circumstances, the applicant’s claims cannot be considered undisputed, which is a mandatory condition for opening bankruptcy proceedings.Case No. 916/1126/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the defendant provided all necessary documents to confirm the expenses incurred (legal assistance agreement, supplementary agreement, service acceptance certificate, report). The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of the unreasonableness or overstatement of the claimed amount of expenses, but merely made unsubstantiated claims about their disproportionality.
Case No. 924/570/24 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision to recognize the participation of LLC “Soft Generation” in public procurement as concerted actions and imposing a fine. The court established that previous instances did not conduct a proper analysis of evidence in their totality, in particular regarding: the use of common IP addresses by bidders, synchronicity of actions when submitting documents, common features of tender documentation formatting, and the existence of economic relations between participants. The courts examined each piece of evidence separately, without assessing their interconnection and the probability of accidental coincidence. The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for proper investigation of all case circumstances in their totality.
Case No. 904/3867/23 dated 21/01/2025
The cassation instance court concluded that the courts of previous instances did not provide proper assessment of the debt restructuring plan and the actions of the debtor and creditor regarding its approval. In particular, the economic feasibility of the plan, its feasibility, and whether the debtor truly had a real intention to fulfill obligations to the creditor were not investigated. It was also not clarified whose fault (debtor’s or creditor’s) prevented achieving the debt restructuring goal.
Case No. 904/5963/23 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: distribution of legal assistance expenses in the cassation instance court in a case about declaring a notary’s executive inscription non-enforceable. The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following arguments: 1) legal assistance expenses must be documentarily confirmed and proven; 2) the amount of expenses must be commensurate with the case complexity, volume of services provided, and their cost; 3) the fixed fee amount is determined by agreement between the lawyer and the client, and the court has no right to interfere in these legal relations if the amount is justified and proportional. The court decided to recover from LLC “Ertanz” in favor of LLC “Porsche Leasing Ukraine” 18,600 UAH of legal assistance expenses in the cassation instance court.
Case No. 910/3559/21 (910/13507/23) dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: declaring invalid mortgage agreements concluded by the debtor before the bankruptcy proceedings were opened. The courts of first and appellate instances refused to satisfy the claim, indicating only that the plaintiff did not prove its claims with proper evidence. At the same time, the courts did not provide proper assessment of the parties’ arguments, did not establish which rights were violated, and did not investigate the presence or absence of grounds for declaring transactions invalid at the time of their conclusion.The Supreme Court recognized such decisions as unfounded due to violations of procedural law regarding the reasoning of court decisions. The Supreme Court revoked the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 914/669/22 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that a permanent forest user (State Enterprise “Forests of Ukraine”) bears responsibility for improper performance of forest protection duties, even if it did not directly carry out illegal logging. The forest user’s unlawful inaction consists of failing to ensure tree preservation and allowing their unauthorized felling on the subordinate territory. The causal relationship between inaction and damage has been proven.
Case No. 910/1953/23 dated 29/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) expenses for preparing an application for recovering court costs are not subject to reimbursement, as this is essentially presenting evidence; 2) expenses for legal analysis of court procedural rulings are not mandatory and inevitable; 3) the amount of expenses must be proportionate to the case complexity, time spent, volume of services, and claim value.
Case No. 905/1822/20 dated 21/01/2025
The court established that the disputed land plot was previously leased by the founder of the farming enterprise, on the basis of which he created this enterprise. According to the law, after the registration of the farming enterprise, the land plot lessee’s rights automatically transferred from the founder to the enterprise. Therefore, concluding a new lease agreement did not require land auctions, since the right to use the plot already belonged to the farming enterprise by force of law.
Case No. 914/354/22 dated 30/01/2025
When considering the issue of legal assistance expenses, the court was guided by the following arguments: 1) expenses must be real, necessary, and reasonable; 2) a fixed lawyer’s fee is determined by agreement with the client but is not binding for the court when resolving the issue of court costs distribution; 3) some claimed lawyer services are duplicated and essentially covered by the service of preparing a response to the cassation complaint.
Case No. 904/544/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court declared the contracts invalid as they were concluded under the influence of severe circumstances (the need to start the heating season) and on extremely unfavorable terms for the municipal enterprise (assuming third-party debts without compensation). The court also indicated that the legal succession rule for debt obligations cannot be applied to such legal relations, as the municipal enterprise is not the legal successor of the previous property user.
Case No. 922/618/22 dated 30/01/2025
The subject of the dispute is recovering 1.7 million UAH in damages from the state enterprise “Izium Forestry”The court denied the claim since the plaintiff did not prove by proper evidence the fact of violation of environmental legislation by the defendant. The inspection report referenced by the plaintiff was signed by only 5 out of 10 officials, did not contain detailed information about the number and characteristics of cut trees, and the defendant’s guilt in littering environmental territories was not proven. Regarding water withdrawal – the volume did not exceed the legally permitted norms. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances, as proving all elements of the offense is necessary for bringing to responsibility, and the evidence provided by the plaintiff did not confirm the unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions and the amount of damage caused.
Case No. 991/9618/24 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery in state revenue of PERSON_1’s assets in the form of buildings, structures, and 100% share in LLC “INNOVA”. The court was guided by the fact that PERSON_1, being the head of JSC “Motor Sich”, continued to supply aviation engines to the Russian Federation through controlled enterprises after 2014, thereby creating a significant threat to Ukraine’s national security. The court also took into account that sanctions in the form of asset blocking had already been applied to PERSON_1, and asset recovery is a proportionate intervention in property rights given the importance of public interest in stopping Russian military aggression. The court satisfied the claim of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and recovered the specified assets of PERSON_1 in state revenue.
Case No. 910/18530/23 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the buyer has the right to demand return of prepayment if the seller did not transfer the goods within the established timeframe. The plaintiff properly exercised the right to return the advance by sending a corresponding demand to the defendant, which was not fulfilled. At the same time, the validity of the contract does not affect the buyer’s right to demand return of unused advance.
Case No. 910/19845/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) The Reserve as the title holder of property had the right to file a negatory claim; 2) the contract conditions provided the Reserve’s right to unilateral contract termination in case of restoration work appointment; 3) The Reserve properly notified the defendant about contract termination 3 months in advance.
Case No. 917/267/24 dated 22/01/2025
The court noted that previous instance courts did not provide proper assessment of all evidence in the case, particularly the expert opinion and the protocol of the village council commission, which confirmed the impossibility of alternative access to the plaintiff’s plot. The courts also did not substantiate on what evidence they concluded about the possibility of arranging an alternative passage. The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of the servitude is to ensure effective land plot use, and access must correspond to the owner’s needs and regulatory requirements.
Case No. 918/822/23 dated 23/01/2025The court was guided by the fact that the decisions of the general meetings of LLC ‘Tradex’ dated 28.02.2018 and 28.02.2022 determined the amount and procedure for dividend payment to participant PERSON_2. At the same time, the debtor and other creditors did not provide proper and admissible evidence of dividend payment in the claimed amount. A tax authority’s letter about tax liability calculation for dividends and the explanation of the former director cannot be independent evidence of payments in the absence of documents confirming actual cash movement.
Case No. 910/7590/22 dated 23/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the dormitory is state property that was not included in the authorized capital of PJSC ‘Mostobudj’ during privatization; 2) a decision to transfer the dormitory to communal ownership was made in 2009, but has not been implemented for 13 years; 3) such inaction by the defendants violates the rights of dormitory residents and the territorial community.
Case No. 910/15138/19 dated 29/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the plaintiff’s chosen method of protection is ineffective, as it cannot actually restore their violated rights; 2) as of the time of case consideration, conducting the competition is impossible due to the expiration of the share placement period and the validity of the conclusion about their value; 3) legislation does not empower the State Property Fund with powers to renew the competition.
Case No. 914/549/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court established that although legislation contains restrictions on offsetting counterclaims in the electricity market through the ‘netting’ mechanism, these restrictions only apply to contracts on imbalance settlement and participation in the balancing market. In this case, the offset was made under a contract on participation in the balancing group, which does not contain such restrictions. The court also took into account that in the absence of a direct prohibition in law or contract, one party’s disagreement with the offset is not grounds for declaring such a transaction invalid.
Case No. 910/12556/20 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute: obligation to fulfill the terms of a supply contract for equipment for monitoring TV and radio programs and recovery of debt under the contract.
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the following main arguments: 1) The supplied equipment corresponded to the technical specification, and some equipment even had better technical characteristics than specified; 2) The customer (National Council) actually accepted the equipment and did not refuse it for a long time; 3) The National Council did not provide proper evidence of the supplied equipment’s non-compliance with technical requirements.
The court satisfied the equipment supplier’s claim and obliged the National Council to accept the delivered goods and pay the debt under the contract amounting to 2.47 million UAH, as well as penalty, 3% per annum, and inflation losses.
Case No. 904/3867/23 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the debtor acted in good faith: timely provided corrected declarations about property status after remarks by arbitrage
