Case No. 927/1128/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court found that since civil protection facilities could not be privatized under the law, their transfer to private ownership was illegal. At the same time, the court decided that the appropriate method of protecting state rights in such cases is a negatory claim (requirement to remove obstacles to property use), rather than claims to cancel establishing documents.
Case No. 754/3393/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court established that the plaintiff’s father was a member of the cooperative because: 1) he fully paid the share contribution for the garage, confirmed by a cooperative certificate from 2016; 2) he paid membership fees for a long time, which could only be paid by members; 3) the cooperative did not provide evidence refuting the deceased’s membership. The court also noted that maintaining a membership register is the cooperative’s obligation, so it cannot transfer the negative consequences of improper record-keeping to the heirs.
Case No. 639/2659/22 dated 29/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the responsibility for compliance with fire safety rules lies with the owner of the apartment where the fire occurred – the Kharkiv City Council, not the municipal enterprise ‘Zhylkomservis’, which only manages the building. ‘Zhylkomservis’ is responsible for maintaining common areas, but not for the condition of individual apartments. The court also took into account that the city council did not provide evidence of the apartment tenants’ guilt in the fire.
Case No. 911/1807/23 dated 04/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is challenging the transition of the religious community of Bilohorodka village from UOC to OCU by invalidating the general meeting decision, new statute version, and registration record. The first instance court and the appellate court refused to satisfy the UOC priest’s claim, and the Supreme Court agreed with their decisions. This corresponds to established judicial practice, according to which religious communities have the right to change their confessional affiliation by making an appropriate decision at a general meeting. The courts recognized that the community transition procedure was properly followed. The Supreme Court left the previous instances’ decisions unchanged, confirming the legality of the religious community’s transition from UOC to OCU.
Case No. 751/503/22 dated 29/01/2025
The court established that the convicted PERSON_9 and PERSON_13, together with other persons by prior conspiracy, committed an intentional murder of PERSON_16 and an unfinished attempt to murder PERSON_14. The intent to murder is evidenced by the number and intensity of strikes, their localization in vital organ areas, the nature of bodily injuries, and the subsequent behavior of the convicted, who did not provide assistance to the victims and fled the crime scene. The guilt of the convicted is confirmed by the victim’s testimony, witnesses’ statements, expert conclusions, and other evidence.
Case No. 644/4388/23 dated 30/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that: 1) the introduction of Russian educational standards poses a great public danger, as it is aimed at eradicating Ukrainian identity in children; 2) although the convicted was not previously held responsible and is characterized positively, the severity of the crime requires actual punishment; 3) the ban on educational activities is justified, as patriotic education is a teacher’s obligation.Case No. 585/3973/23 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal sale of a psychotropic substance PVP. The court in making its decision was guided by the following: 1) the crime is particularly dangerous as it is associated with the distribution of psychotropic substances, which undermines the legal order of their circulation; 2) although the convicted person has no prior criminal record and has certain mitigating circumstances, their rehabilitation is possible only in conditions of isolation from society; 3) the public danger of the crime and its negative impact on public health require actual serving of the sentence. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal – upheld the punishment of 2 years of restricted freedom, but credited the period of detention and house arrest to the sentence term.
Case No. 910/11034/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court noted that the first application for bankruptcy proceedings is considered to be the one that was calendarly submitted earlier, regardless of the method of submission (through the registry or mail). At the same time, the courts of previous instances did not establish which application was submitted earlier and did not consider the applicant’s motion for case transfer. The courts also did not take into account that at the time of the first application by mail, the debtor was registered in Kyiv and later changed the address to Dnipro.
Case No. 589/854/19 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court in a criminal case under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of road safety rules that caused serious consequences). Since this is only the operative part of the resolution, the court’s arguments are not provided. However, from the decision, it is evident that the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, finding no grounds for their cancellation or modification. The Supreme Court left the convicted person’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the challenged court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 940/882/22 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding punishment for traffic rules violation that caused bodily injuries and the amount of moral damages compensation. The court was guided by the fact that the imposed punishment (3 years of restricted freedom with a probationary period of 2 years and deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 3 years) is fair and proportionate to the committed crime, considering all circumstances of the case – admission of guilt, sincere repentance, positive personal characteristics, but also the severity of the road accident consequences. Regarding moral compensation of 100,000 UAH, the court found it justified given the nature and duration of the victim’s physical and moral suffering, who received moderate injuries and required prolonged treatment. The Supreme Court left the decisions of previous instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the convicted person’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/143/24 dated 29/01/2025
The court agreed with the HQCJ’s conclusion that the plaintiff dishonestly filled out the candidate judge application forms, not indicating the receipt of a Russian Federation passport in the occupied territory. Although the plaintiff explained this by forced circumstances (safety, family visits), the court believes that a judicial candidate should have understood the need to report such important information, especially in conditions of occupation and aggression by the Russian Federation. The court also noted that obtaining a Russian passport was a voluntary decision by the plaintiff, albeit motivated by personal reasons.
Case No. 910/7767/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the disputeTranslation:
1. Recovery of funds in the amount of 4.46 million UAH from LLC “Kotliarevskyi Elevator” in favor of PSP “Agrofirma “Rodnichok””.
The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that legal assistance expenses must be proportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services provided. The court analyzed the submitted evidence regarding incurred lawyer expenses (contract, service acceptance certificate, payment documents) and took into account that the defendant’s position remained consistent throughout the case proceedings. The court also considered the criteria of reasonableness and reality of lawyer expenses.
The court partially satisfied the application of LLC “Kotliarevskyi Elevator” and recovered legal assistance expenses from PSP “Agrofirma “Rodnichok” in the amount of 20,000 UAH instead of the claimed 40,000 UAH.
2. The court was guided by the fact that: 1) the plot boundaries for which a permit was already issued to LLC “Skhidnytskyi Polihon” completely coincide with the plot put up for auction; 2) both permits relate to the same type of mineral resources (natural gas, condensate); 3) according to paragraph 3 of Procedure No. 615, within one subsoil plot, multiple permits can be issued only for different types of mineral resources.
3. Subject of dispute – appealing the appellate court’s verdict regarding recognizing a person guilty of using a forged driver’s license and driving a vehicle while being deprived of such right by court decision.
The court was guided by the fact that the accused was aware of the prohibition on driving a vehicle according to the court order but deliberately violated it. The fact that driving was carried out to purchase construction materials does not exclude intent to disobey the court decision. The court also considered that the accused admitted guilt and confirmed knowledge of the driving prohibition.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict, which found the person guilty of criminal offenses and sentenced them to restricted freedom with a probationary period.
4. The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) Article 23 of the Law “On Citizens’ Appeals” does not impose an obligation on the President to establish a reception procedure requiring his personal participation; 2) the President legitimately delegated the citizen reception function to the Presidential Office of Ukraine; 3) the Constitution of Ukraine contains no provisions obligating the President to personally conduct citizen receptions.
5. The court, when rendering the decision, was guided by the fact that the convicted person was previously not criminally prosecuted, sincerely repented, has an unsatisfactory health condition, is officially employed and supports elderly sick parents. For 7 years after committing the crime, they led a law-abiding lifestyle. The court also considered that when sentencing, it is important to adhere to the principle of individualization and evaluate not only the severity of the crime but the perpetrator’s personality comprehensively.
6. Subject of dispute: appealing an acquittal regarding a state cadastral registrar accused of official negligence when registering land plots.
Main court arguments: 1) The appellate court did not provide proper assessment of the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the causal relationship between the registrar’s actions and the illegal alienation of lands from communal ownership. 2) It was not investigated whether the accused had a legal obligation to verify land management project approvals with the department.Translation:
Architectural demolition. 3) The court did not analyze that the registration of plots in the cadastre was a mandatory prerequisite for their subsequent illegal privatization. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review due to significant violations of criminal procedural law requirements.
Case No. 629/7186/18 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute – cassation appeal of sentences against two persons convicted of a series of criminal offenses, including robbery. The court decided to partially satisfy the complaint of one of the defense attorneys, as it discovered significant violations that require a new review of the case. In this regard, the court took into account the need to ensure proper judicial review and decided to apply a preventive measure in the form of detention for both defendants during the new appellate review. It is important to note that the complaint of the second defense attorney was completely rejected. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court canceled the verdict of the Kharkiv Appellate Court and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 759/14120/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the defendant admitted his guilt and sincerely repented; 2) partially compensated the damage to the victim and tried to rectify the consequences of his actions; 3) previously not convicted, has third-group disability. At the same time, the court reasonably left the civil claim without consideration due to the victim’s non-appearance in the court session without valid reasons.
Case No. 910/619/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute – appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine’s decision by ‘YUKOYIL’ company regarding invalidating points of the temporary administrative board’s decision. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the AMC’s cassation complaint against the lower instance courts’ decisions, concluded that a new review of the case was necessary. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to determine the specific arguments of the court, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are provided, without the reasoning part. Based on the review results, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the AMC’s cassation complaint, canceled the previous instances’ decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 757/72925/17 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute – appeal of the court’s decision to release two former police officers from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations. The court in making its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) when releasing from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations, the court should not establish the person’s guilt; 2) procedural expenses for expert examinations in such a case are borne by the state; 3) civil claims by victims were rightfully left without consideration, as they can be reviewed in civil proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the lower instance courts’ decisions on releasing the defendants from criminal liability due to the expiration of statute of limitations.
Case No. 369/7807/21 dated 30/01/2025
The court established that the defendant’s actions did not contain signs of hooliganism, as the conflict arose on a personal basis after the victim first used force. Shots from the pistol were chaotic and non-targeted, without intent to cause harm. The courtyard of a private house where the incident occurred is not a public place. There is no motive of obvious disrespect for society, which is a mandatory feature of hooliganism.
Case No. 761/13890/17 dated 28/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – accusation of the general director of a state-owned enterprise of appropriating a service iPad tablet and iPhone phone with a total value of 38,618 UAH. The court established that the accused did not intend to appropriate the property, as she filed a report of lost equipment by mistake, and when she found it at home, she immediately tried to return it to the enterprise, expressing willingness to compensate for its value. Importantly, the equipment was discovered during a search at the accused’s place of residence, where it was stored while waiting for the liquidation commission to agree to accept it. The absence of mercenary motive and direct intent excludes the elements of a crime. The court acquitted the accused due to the absence of criminal offense elements in her actions.
Case No. 911/1316/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – invalidation of public organization general meeting decisions and cancellation of state registration of changes to legal entity information. Unfortunately, from the provided text, it is impossible to determine the court’s main arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are presented without the reasoning part, where legal positions and court justifications are usually explained. The Supreme Court denied the cassation appeal of the Central Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice and left the decisions of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 752/21780/14-к dated 30/01/2025
The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not fulfill the previous instructions of the Supreme Court regarding the need for proper evaluation of evidence, particularly the investigative experiment protocol and expert conclusions. The appellate court also did not provide proper assessment of evidence regarding the presence of the victim’s blood traces on the accused’s clothing and did not provide sufficient motives for rejecting the prosecutor’s appeal.
Case No. 606/1390/23 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging a court verdict convicting a person for theft of 750 UAH during martial law. The court in making its decision was guided by: 1) a new law came into force that raised the property value threshold for qualifying theft as a criminal offense; 2) the stolen amount (750 UAH) became lower than the established threshold of 2 non-taxable minimum citizen incomes; 3) according to the legal position of the United Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Supreme Court, the new law has retroactive effect and decriminalizes such actions. The Supreme Court canceled the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling and closed the criminal proceedings, as the person’s actions are no longer considered a criminal offense.
Case No. 396/722/18 dated 03/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling in a criminal case regarding intentional serious bodily injury (Part 1, Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). As this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, from the text, it is evident that the case was reviewed in all three instances – district court, appellate court, and Supreme Court. The convicted person’s defense attorney attempted to challenge previous instances’ decisions through cassation. The Supreme Court decided to leave the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling unchanged and deny the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/31/24 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – recovery of almost 76 million hryvnias and obligation to cease service charges in a dispute between two energy companiesSupreme Court, having reviewed the case materials and arguments of the cassation appeal, concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of previous courts. Unfortunately, from the provided resolution text, it is impossible to establish specific court arguments, as only the operative part of the decision is presented without the reasoning part.
Based on the results of reviewing the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court partially satisfied Ukrenergo’s complaint, cancelled all previous court decisions, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 260/182/24 dated 03/02/2025:
The court concluded that centralized accounting departments were structural units of executive committees of People’s Deputy Councils, not independent institutions. Therefore, the work period in such accounting departments should be counted towards civil service experience, as according to Procedure No. 283, work in executive committees of local Councils and their structural units is included in such experience. Previous courts incorrectly applied legal norms, considering centralized accounting departments as separate budgetary institutions.
Case No. 870/34/23 dated 28/01/2025:
The court was guided by the fact that: 1) there are no legally prescribed grounds for refusing to issue an order for forced execution of an arbitration court decision, as the arbitration court composition met legal requirements, the case was within the arbitration court’s jurisdiction, and the decision was not cancelled; 2) the application for postponing the execution of the arbitration court decision is not subject to satisfaction, as the applicant has not proven the existence of circumstances complicating the decision’s execution and has not provided proper evidence of financial hardship.
Case No. 758/3637/17 dated 28/01/2025:
Subject of dispute – review of the verdict for newly discovered circumstances regarding a person convicted of misappropriation of property on a particularly large scale. The cassation instance court established that the appellate court did not fulfill the procedural law requirements, as it did not properly verify and evaluate the arguments of the convicted person’s appeal. In particular, the court used inadmissible formulations such as ‘even if assuming’ and did not provide a clear assessment of arguments about the absence of company representation in Kyiv, the illegality of salary deduction orders, and the disappearance of part of the case materials.
As a result, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court ruling, and sent the case for a new appellate review.
Case No. 290/480/20 dated 23/01/2025:
Subject of dispute – appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding the conviction of a person for causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death. The cassation instance court, when considering the case, was guided by the fact that: 1) lower instance courts properly examined all evidence in the case and provided a correct assessment; 2) witness testimonies, expert examination results, and other evidence confirm the convicted person’s guilt; 3) defense arguments about evidence inadmissibility and incompleteness of judicial review are unfounded.
The Supreme Court left unchanged the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling, which sentenced the person to 8 years of imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death.
Case No. 741/133/21 dated 30/01/2025:
Subject of dispute – appealing the court verdict regarding three persons convicted of intentionally causing grievous and moderate bodily harm by a group of persons. The court, when making the decision, was guided by the fact that: 1) the convicted persons’ guilt in committing…The guilt is fully proven by the testimony of victims, the accused themselves, and forensic medical expert conclusions; 2) the actions of the convicted persons were joint and coordinated, which confirms the qualification as a crime committed by a group of persons; 3) the statute of limitations for prosecution for causing moderate bodily injuries (5 years) had expired at the time of the appellate review.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals – it cancelled the verdict in part of conviction under Part 1 of Article 122 of the Criminal Code (moderate bodily injuries) due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but maintained the conviction under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code (grievous bodily injuries) with a punishment of 5 years of imprisonment.
In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that: 1) by analogy of law, provisions on appealing rulings on the return of a statement of claim can be applied to such legal relations; 2) the right to appellate appeal is a component of the constitutional right to judicial protection; 3) excessive formalism in interpreting procedural legislation that may restrict access to justice should not be allowed.
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appellate appeal filed by the victim’s representative. The court does not provide arguments in the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the ruling will be compiled later. However, the decision shows that the court found grounds for cancelling the appellate court’s ruling, which had returned the appellate appeal without consideration.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, cancelled the ruling of the Rivne Appellate Court, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
The subject of the dispute is challenging the appellate court’s ruling on returning the prosecutor’s appellate appeal against the verdict in a criminal case of attempted theft.
Since this is only the operative part of the ruling, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, the decision shows that the Supreme Court found the return of the prosecutor’s appellate appeal by the appellate court to be unlawful.
Based on the review, the Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate court.
The subject of the dispute is the termination of a contract and recovery of funds between Radhosprobkoop “Bezlyudivskyi” and Individual Entrepreneur Potaskaieva Yu.S.
The court established that previous judicial instances made mistakes in calculating and collecting penalties from the defendant. Procedural violations were also identified in the review of the appellate appeal challenging the additional decision. The court decided that the case requires a new review to correctly determine the amount of recoveries.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of Individual Entrepreneur Potaskaieva Yu.S., cancelled previous decisions in part of penalty collection, and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
The court was guided by the fact that part of the claimed requirements (20.6 million hryvnias) was not properly documented. In particular, the court established that the payment of 12.6 million hryvnias was directed to repay the debt under additional agreement No. 15, for which the creditor did not make claims. The court also noted that the burden of proving the validity of claims lies with the creditor, who must provide all necessary primary documents.Case No. 620/4999/24 dated 04/02/2025
The court established that the pension recalculation carried out to execute a court decision to rectify a person’s violated right is not grounds for terminating the monthly supplement of 2000 UAH provided by CMU Resolution No. 713. Such supplement shall continue to be paid to achieve the resolution’s purpose – gradual reduction of disparities in pensions assigned before 01/03/2018.
Case No. 560/6086/24 dated 04/02/2025
The court noted that state registration of a land plot in the State Land Cadastre is not equivalent to state registration of property rights to real estate. Land plot registration is a result of the State Geocadaster authorities exercising their control functions in management activities, which does not create property rights. Since the dispute concerns public legal relations between the plaintiff and the authority, rather than property rights issues, it should be considered under administrative, not civil proceedings.
Case No. 990/335/24 dated 30/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the disputed HCJ decision is not addressed to the plaintiff, and it does not create, modify, or terminate her rights or obligations in public legal relations. The right to appeal an individual act of an authority is granted only to the person to whom the act is issued or whose rights it directly concerns. The contested decision relates only to the rights of the judge for whom it was adopted.
Case No. 216/3169/22 dated 05/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is appealing the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding a person’s conviction under Article 402 of the Criminal Code (insubordination). The cassation instance court, having reviewed the defense counsel’s cassation complaint, found no grounds for canceling or modifying previous court decisions. Unfortunately, since only the operative part of the resolution is provided, specific court arguments for the decision are absent. The Supreme Court left the previous instance court decisions unchanged and rejected the defense counsel’s cassation complaint.
Case No. 127/19722/17 dated 05/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is appealing the verdict and appellate court ruling in criminal proceedings against a person accused of illegal deprivation of liberty and robbery. The court reviewed two cassation complaints – from the convicted person’s defense counsel and from the prosecutor. The main issue was not changing qualification or punishment, but a technical matter regarding mentioning other persons’ names in the court decision, whose materials were separated into a separate proceeding. The court decided that such names should be replaced with depersonalized formulations. Following the review, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s complaint, rejected the prosecutor’s complaint, and modified the appellate court ruling only regarding replacing names with depersonalized formulations, leaving other decisions unchanged.
Case No. 303/9349/21 dated 05/02/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor appealing the appellate court decision in a case of traffic safety rules violation while intoxicated, causing serious consequences (Part 3, Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). Since this is only the operative part, the court does not provide arguments for its decision. However, the text shows that the prosecutor disagreed with the Zakarpattia Appellate Court’s decision and appealed it in cassation to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court ruling, and referred the case for new consideration to the court.Here is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
at the appellate instance.
Case No. 686/27578/22 dated 21/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that after the Law No. 3886-IX came into force, the boundaries of criminal liability for petty theft changed – now they are considered an administrative offense if the stolen amount does not exceed 2 non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens. Since in most episodes the stolen amount was less than this threshold, the court excluded them from the accusation. The court also took into account that the convicted person has a recidivism of crimes and was previously repeatedly brought to criminal responsibility.
Case No. 361/5159/20 dated 30/01/2025
Subject of dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint regarding the leniency of punishment for a person convicted of illegal drug trafficking. When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) The convicted person committed the crime due to severe family circumstances and has three dependents; 2) Fully admitted guilt, sincerely repented, and actively assisted in the investigation; 3) Characterized positively at the place of work and residence, has a permanent job; 4) Has not committed any offenses in the 5 years since the crime. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint – excluded from the court decisions the reference to the qualifying feature “especially dangerous narcotic drug”, but left unchanged the imposed punishment of 5 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 3 years.
Case No. 922/304/24 dated 28/01/2025
The court was guided by the fact that the control inspection act only records the fact of inspection of accounting means and meter readings, but does not establish obligations for the consumer, therefore, its challenge is not an appropriate method of protecting rights. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the technical malfunction of the meter or the incorrectness of charges for electricity consumed, as the conducted check confirmed the serviceability of the accounting device.
Case No. 911/3465/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery by LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” from PJSC “Centrenergo” of debt in the amount of 362.7 million UAH. The court left the cassation complaint of PJSC “Centrenergo” unsatisfied, as part of the cassation proceedings was closed, and in the other part, the court found no grounds for canceling previous court decisions. The court decided that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances are legal and well-founded. Based on the results of the case review, the Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claim for recovery of funds.
Case No. 727/5188/22 dated 30/01/2025
When making a decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the case was considered in compliance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction, as the indictment was received by the court before legislative changes; 2) the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination about the limited sanity of the accused is well-founded and does not require additional inpatient examination; 3) the imposed punishment of 12 years of imprisonment corresponds to the gravity of the crime and the person of the convicted.
Case No. 904/5468/23 dated 29/01/2025
The court denied the claim, guided by the fact that from July 1, 2020, the extension of state property lease agreements is possible only in the manner prescribed by the new Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Municipal Property”, which provides a special procedure through an auction and does not allow automatic extension of the contract. The court noted that this law is special and
