Case No. 400/8344/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Refusal to Pay One-Time Monetary Assistance to a Police Officer in Connection with Loss of Professional Capacity.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The right to receive one-time monetary assistance arises under three mandatory conditions: the cause of disability is a service-related illness; disability was established before or within 6 months after dismissal; the reason for dismissal is related to such illness.
2. Previous instance courts did not establish the key circumstance – the exact date of submission of documents to the medical and social expert commission, which is decisive for establishing the right to assistance.
3. The Supreme Court deviates from previous practice, emphasizing the need to clearly establish all circumstances of the case, especially the date of medical documents submission.
Court Decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly establish all circumstances.
Case No. 215/3080/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Forgery and Use of Another Person’s Passport by a Previously Convicted Person.
Key Court Arguments: First, the court established that PERSON_7 fully admitted guilt in passport forgery by pasting their own photograph instead of the original. Second, the court recognized sincere repentance and absence of aggravating circumstances as mitigating. Third, the court concluded that there are grounds to apply Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code, which allows imposing a punishment less than the maximum.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and sentenced PERSON_7 to 1 year 4 months of restricted freedom for document forgery and 1 year for its use, with a final punishment of 3 years 6 months of imprisonment.
Case No. 400/226/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a Tax Notification-Decision on Imposing a Fine for Late Registration of Tax Invoices in the Unified Tax Invoice Registry.
Key Court Arguments:
1. Provisions of Law No. 2876-IX do not directly indicate retroactive effect, therefore they cannot be applied to legal relations that arose before its entry into force.
2. Sanctioning norms that existed “before” and “after” the law’s entry into force provide for liability for different types of tax offenses.
3. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s decision of December 18, 2024, is not relevant for regulating tax relations, as it concerns entrepreneurial activity.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal and leave the administrative appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
Case No. 491/1073/22 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Liability of a Man for Systematic Psychological Domestic Violence against a Cohabitant.
Key Court Arguments: First, the systematic nature of domestic violence is characterized not only by a quantitative criterion (more than three acts) but also by qualitative – persistent unlawful behavior. Second, previous administrative liability does not exclude criminal liability if violent actions continue. Third, the court carefully analyzed evidence – victim’s testimony, witnesses, expert conclusions confirming the systematic nature of psychological violence and its negative impact on the victim’s mental health.
Court Decision: Leave the district court’s verdict [incomplete in original text]Leave the judgment of the first instance court and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.Subject of the Dispute: Recovery of Material and Moral Damages from the Regional Branch “Donetsk Railway” as a Result of a Traffic Accident.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the regional branch “Donetsk Railway” cannot be a defendant in the case, as branches are not legal entities and do not have civil procedural capacity. The court violated procedural norms, as the proper defendant – JSC “Ukrainian Railways” was not involved in the case, and the regional branch was not properly notified of the court session.
Court Decision: To cancel the decisions of previous instances in the part of the civil claim and assign a new consideration of the case in the order of civil proceedings.
Case No. 380/6407/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute – Calculation and Payment of Compensation to a Serviceman for Unused Additional Leave Days for 2014-2020.
Main Arguments of the Court: The military unit filed an appellate complaint after the expiration of one year from the day of the court decision, while being notified about the case consideration. The legislation clearly establishes that a subject of power loses the right to appellate appeal after a one-year period, regardless of the validity of the reasons, except for two specific cases (non-notification about the case or non-participation in the case where the decision concerns their rights).
The Court decided to leave the cassation complaint without satisfaction, that is, to confirm the previous court decisions on partial satisfaction of the serviceman’s claim.
Case No. 761/31137/23 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Consideration of the Prosecutor’s Cassation Complaint against the Ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court on Returning His Appellate Complaint against the Sentence of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the procedural actions of the appellate court and concluded that the return of the prosecutor’s appellate complaint was unjustified. The court established that the appellate complaint met all necessary procedural requirements and had no grounds for return. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the previous ruling and send the case for a new appellate review.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review in the appellate instance court.
Case No. 240/21418/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Calculation and Payment of Pension Increase to a Non-Working Pensioner Living in the Territory of Radioactive Contamination due to the Chornobyl Catastrophe.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional the cancellation of benefits for those affected by the Chornobyl Catastrophe. Second, from 17.07.2018, the previous version of Article 39 of the Law on the Status of Chornobyl Catastrophe Victims was restored. Third, the increase amount should be calculated not from the minimum wage, but from the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the claim, recognizing the inaction of the Pension Fund as unlawful and obliging to calculate and pay the pension increase in the amount of two subsistence minimums for able-bodied persons.
Case No. 320/9613/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Challenging Tax Notifications-Decisions Issued Based on the Actual Inspection of LLC “AVANTAZH-7” by the Central Interregional Office of the State Tax Service.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The actual inspection was conducted without any legally defined grounds, which is aTranslation:
1. There was no violation of the procedure.
2. The controlling authority did not provide any evidence of information about possible violations by the taxpayer.
3. The accrued penalty sanctions do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case and have no legal grounds.
Court Decision: The cassation complaint of the Central Interregional State Tax Service Office shall be left unsatisfied, and the previous court decisions shall remain unchanged.
Case No. 640/36719/21 dated 18/02/2025
The case concerns a dispute about collecting tax debt from the state enterprise “Makiivvuhillia” at the expense of funds from the Ministry of Energy.
Main arguments of the court:
1. SE “Makiivvuhillia” does not belong to enterprises that are not subject to privatization, therefore there are no grounds for applying Article 96 of the Tax Code.
2. The tax authority did not prove that it had taken all possible measures to collect the debt, in particular, the possibility of repayment from the enterprise’s accounts receivable was not investigated.
3. The Ministry of Energy provided a substantiated response about the impossibility of influencing the enterprise due to its location in the combat zone.
The court decided to reject the tax authority’s claim for debt collection.
Case No. 335/7737/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal case of murder and attempted murder, where PERSON_6 is accused of intentionally causing the death of PERSON_10 and attempting to murder PERSON_11.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court formally reviewed the case without properly verifying the defense arguments.
2. The court did not provide a detailed assessment of expert opinions and testimonies containing contradictions.
3. The appellate court did not motivate the refusal to satisfy the defense’s motions for additional investigation of case circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance with a requirement to thoroughly verify all evidence and arguments of the parties.
Case No. 464/7111/14-k dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances in a criminal case regarding PERSON_6.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court did not provide proper motives when considering the convict’s complaint, in particular, did not explain the grounds for rejecting arguments about the illegal composition of the court. The court pointed out procedural norm violations, as the appellate court’s ruling does not meet the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which require clear substantiation of court decisions.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court, and appointed a new review in the appellate instance.
Case No. 585/4127/18 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding a person who committed theft of goods worth 297.90 UAH in an ATB store.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that due to legislative changes that came into effect on August 9, 2024, theft of an amount less than 2 non-taxable minimums (1,762 UAH) is no longer considered a criminal offense but an administrative violation. The court referred to the resolution of the united chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court, which confirmed that the new law has retroactive effect and cancels criminal liability for such actions.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and close criminal proceedings due to the loss of validity of the law establishing criminal unlawfulness of the act.
Case No. 560/16696/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: The military unit did not calculate and pay compensation to the serviceman for loss of income due to violation of indexation payment terms for monetary support.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court considered the special status of the military unit during martial law, when funds are directed to ensuring combat tasks. Second, the respondent demonstrated good faith by submitting an application for budget allocations to pay court fees. Third, the court believes that the appellate court showed excessive formalism by not taking into account objective circumstances of impossibility of timely payment of court fees.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the appellate administrative court and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 209/183/20 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for drug sales.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court thoroughly analyzed evidence in the case, including witness testimonies, expert results, and search protocols confirming the fact of drug sales. Second, the court found no confirmation of the defense’s version about crime provocation and evidence falsification. Third, the court established that all procedural actions were conducted in compliance with legislation, and evidence was collected properly.
Court decision: Leave the district court verdict and appellate court ruling unchanged, and the defense lawyer’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 826/13621/18 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on additional VAT charges for transactions with counterparty LLC “Knaus City”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The controlling authority established the absence of actual economic transactions between LLC “House-Building Combine-7” and LLC “Knaus City” due to the counterparty’s lack of necessary labor and material resources.
2. Primary documents do not confirm actual work performance, as they show signs of formality: absence of specific work list, signing multiple contracts for one object, inability of the counterparty’s director to explain details of performed work.
3. Existence of criminal proceedings against the counterparty and lack of evidence of actual resource use confirm the conclusion about the unreality of economic transactions.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, tax notification-decision – unchanged.
Case No. 320/3264/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the State Judicial Administration on forming a liquidation commission of the Kyiv Administrative District Court and approving the liquidation measures plan.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Judicial Administration (SJA) has powers to ensure implementation of court liquidation decisions, which includes creating a liquidation commission and approving measures plan.
2. The LawHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Regarding the liquidation of the court, it should not detail all the powers of the State Judicial Administration (DSA), as they are already defined by the relevant law on the judicial system.
3. The action plan does not provide for the dismissal of judges, but only regulates the procedure for releasing court staff.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied and the previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 826/13621/18 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute – challenging by the Limited Liability Company “Housing Construction Combine-7” of a tax notification-decision issued by the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service in Kyiv.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that there are no grounds for canceling the tax notification-decision. The panel of judges took into account all provided evidence and established that the actions of the tax authority were lawful and complied with current legislation. The court thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case and verified compliance with procedural norms in issuing the challenged decision.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of LLC “Housing Construction Combine-7” unsatisfied and confirmed the legitimacy of previous court decisions.
Case No. 240/3370/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring unlawful the Pension Fund’s refusal to accrue and pay a pension of 8 minimum old-age pensions to a person with group 2 disability due to the Chornobyl disaster.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its decisions of 07.04.2021 and 03.04.2024 recognized that the state cannot reduce social guarantees for Chornobyl disaster victims, as this violates their constitutional rights.
2. Law No. 1584-IX, which established new pension sizes, actually reduced social guarantees compared to the previous version of the law, which contradicts the Constitutional Court’s decisions.
3. The state must provide enhanced social protection and compensation for health damage to persons affected by the Chornobyl disaster.
Court Decision: To satisfy the claim, obligate the Pension Fund to accrue and pay a pension to a person with group 2 disability in the amount of 8 minimum old-age pensions from 13.09.2023.
Case No. 380/10564/22 dated 18/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the decision of the Drohobych City Council to refuse permission to develop a land management project to obtain a land plot for personal farming.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– During martial law, there is a prohibition on free transfer of communal land to private ownership
– Subsection 5 of paragraph 27 of the Transitional Provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine directly prohibits issuing permits for land management documentation during martial law
– The local self-government body acted within the law, as it had no alternative options
3. Court Decision: To leave unchanged the appellate court’s ruling on refusing to satisfy the plaintiffs’ claim.
Important: The court emphasized that after the end of martial law, the plaintiffs will be able to obtain permission to develop a land management project.
Case No. 334/11730/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict regarding theft committed by a person during martial law.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s decision to impose 5 years of imprisonment, as the crime was committed against an elderly person, the convicted has previous convictions for similar crimes, and the mitigating circumstances she cited are not sufficient to reduce the punishment.Translation:
The court took into account the gravity of the crime, the personality of the guilty party, and the circumstances of the case, recognizing the imposed punishment as fair and necessary for correction and prevention of new crimes.
Court decision: Leave the appellate court’s verdict unchanged and the convict’s cassation complaint without satisfaction.
Case No. 520/671/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the Ministry of Justice on temporary blocking of a private notary’s access to the State Register of Real Property Rights.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice and established that the state registrar is obligated not only to check the presence of a court decision in the register but also to establish its full compliance with documentary information and details. The court believes that if a complete verification of the decision is impossible, the registrar must request an official copy of the court decision from the court.
3. Court decision: Previous instance decisions were canceled and the private notary’s claim was denied, thereby recognizing the Ministry of Justice’s order to block registry access as lawful.
Key thesis of the decision: Formal document verification is insufficient; the registrar must ensure a complete and reliable verification of the grounds for property rights registration.
Case No. 280/2984/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the resolution on imposing an administrative and economic fine on the Zaporizhzhia Branch of PNVK “Interbusiness”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The State Transport Safety Service missed the deadline for appealing the first instance court decision.
2. Reference to martial law is not sufficient grounds for restoring the procedural deadline.
3. Participants in the judicial process are obligated to conscientiously exercise procedural rights and adhere to legally established deadlines.
Court decision: Leave the State Transport Safety Service’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 826/9783/17 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling a tax notification-decision regarding rental payments for land plots.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court pointed out the superficial approach of previous judicial instances in examining the case. The courts did not provide proper legal assessment of the controlling body’s evidence regarding the approval of a new normative monetary valuation of lands, did not investigate all case circumstances, and did not verify the legality of rental payment calculations. Key documents are absent from the case materials – lease agreements and extracts of normative monetary valuation of land plots.
Court decision: Cancel decisions of previous judicial instances and refer the case for new consideration to fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances.
Case No. 757/11969/18-k dated 10/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Official abuse by Ukrzaliznytsia officials when establishing preferential tariffs for freight transportation.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The fact of existence or absence of agreements between the official and the beneficiary has no criminal law significance
– Criminal liability arises if the official acted contrary to service interests, regardless of prior agreements
– The court revealed inconsistencies in the formulation of charges by the appellate court
3. Court decision: Cancel the verdict of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court and schedule a new hearingHere is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
in the Appellate Court.
Key Thesis: An official may be held liable for abuse even without direct agreements with the beneficiary.
Case No. 204/10550/22 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict regarding a person who committed a robbery with the aim of seizing a mobile phone during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the evidence in the case and established that the testimony of the victim, witnesses, and identification protocols consistently and mutually confirm the defendant’s guilt. The court emphasized that the evidence was carefully examined by courts of previous instances, no procedural violations were found, and the defense lawyer’s arguments are unfounded.
Court Decision: To leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, the defense lawyer’s cassation complaint – without satisfaction.
Case No. 815/5325/16 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition as unlawful of the Main Directorate of the State Geocadaster in Odesa Oblast’s decision to refuse termination of permanent land use rights.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the State Property Fund of Ukraine filed an appellate complaint outside the established procedural terms, almost 9 months after receiving ownership powers. Second, at the time of the court decision in 2016, the Fund had no relation to the case and therefore cannot refer to lack of knowledge about the court decision as a valid reason for missing the term. Third, the legislation clearly establishes a one-year preclusive term for appellate appeal of court decisions by authorized entities.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the State Property Fund of Ukraine’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, supporting the appellate court’s decision to refuse opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 520/669/24 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions regarding reduction of negative VAT value, refusal of budget reimbursement, and application of penalty sanctions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the tax authority groundlessly contested the correctness of tax credit formation by LLC “Agrotrade ND” for fertilizer supply operations, as the company provided all necessary primary documents.
2. The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of including negative VAT value from previous periods in the tax credit, as legislation does not establish restrictions on such inclusion.
3. The court recognized as unfounded the tax authority’s arguments about refusing budget reimbursement due to alleged sanctions limitations, as no evidence of sanctions applied to the company was provided.
Court Decision: To leave the Northern Interregional Tax Service’s cassation complaint without satisfaction, the administrative appellate court’s resolution – unchanged.
Case No. 420/31415/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging decisions of the National Bank of Ukraine on revoking licenses and excluding LLC “FINOD” from the State Register of Financial Institutions.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. LLC “FINOD” did not provide a complete package of documents stipulated by Resolution No. 177, including the auditor’s information regarding the property status assessment of significant participation owners.
2. Failure to provide documents is a violation of licensing conditions, confirmed by paragraph 74 of Regulation No. 153.
3. Inability to assess the financial/property status of owners creates risks for clients and creditors of the financial institution.
Decision:Court Decision: The Supreme Court fully satisfied the cassation appeal of the NBU, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and denied satisfaction of the claim to LLC “FINOD”.
Case No. 161/21678/23 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal liability of a Ukrainian citizen PERSON_7 for voluntarily taking a position in the occupation administration of the aggressor state during the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Indisputable evidence was established that PERSON_7 voluntarily took the position of Deputy Head of the Department of Youth Policy, Family and Sports in the occupation administration of Kherson Oblast.
2. Evidence includes witness testimonies, protocols of internet page reviews, documents confirming his activities in occupation authorities.
3. The court found that PERSON_7 was aware of the socially dangerous nature of his actions and acted with direct intent, supporting the functioning of the occupation administration.
Court Decision: Uphold the local court’s verdict – 7 years of imprisonment with a ban on holding positions in state bodies for 15 years and property confiscation.
Case No. 759/15196/22 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation review of a verdict regarding a person accused of bicycle theft during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in the appellate court’s decision. First, the appellate court formally reviewed the defense counsel’s appeal without providing detailed motivation for its conclusions. Second, the appellate instance court unjustifiably applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code on conditional release from serving punishment without providing convincing arguments in favor of such a decision.
Court Decision: Cancel the decision of the Kyiv Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate court with a requirement for proper reasoning of the decision.
Case No. 161/2519/22 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the Volyn Appellate Court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of a criminal offense related to illegal drug trafficking (Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and concluded that the previous appellate court verdict requires review. The court believes that procedural or material errors were made in the previous judicial decision that could have affected the correctness of the verdict. In view of this, the Supreme Court decided to cancel the previous verdict and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the Volyn Appellate Court’s verdict, and assign a new review, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Case No. 826/9783/17 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging a tax notification-decision issued by the Main Directorate of the State Fiscal Service in Kyiv regarding the Subsidiary Enterprise “Kyiv Tourist Hotel ‘Druzhba'”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions have procedural deficiencies. In particular, previous instance courts did not sufficiently investigate all circumstances of the case and did not provide proper legal assessment of evidence. The Supreme Court believes that it is necessary to return the case for a new review to more deeply examine all legal nuances and ensure the completeness of judicial investigation.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a newPre-Trial Review
Case No. 678/150/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of court decisions regarding refusal to satisfy a civil claim for compensation of moral damages in a road traffic accident case.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established the absence of employment relations between the driver PERSON_9 and LLC “Trading House MV Steel”. Second, the court proved that the goods transportation invoice is not an indisputable evidence of employment relations. Third, liability for damage caused by a source of increased danger is specifically associated with the existence of employment or civil law relations, which were not established in this case.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and rejected the cassation appeal of the victim’s representative.
Case No. 202/19597/23 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Appeal of the verdict against a serviceman who committed hooliganism using a firearm during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court recognized that the previously imposed sentence of 5 years imprisonment was too severe, considering the circumstances of the case. The panel of judges took into account that the convicted person was previously not convicted, has six minor children, participated in combat operations, and concluded that it was necessary to mitigate the punishment to the minimum limit of the sanction – 3 years imprisonment.
Court Decision: The Cassation Court partially satisfied the defender’s complaint and mitigated PERSON_7’s punishment to 3 years imprisonment, leaving the rest of the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/5428/22 dated 14/01/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Kyiv City Council demands the recovery of an administrative building with an area of 827.9 sq.m. on Starovokalzalna Street, 22 in Kyiv from the illegal possession of the National Police of Ukraine.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The building was transferred to the city of Kyiv in 1992 in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 311
– Transfer of the building to police use did not change the ownership rights of the territorial community
– State registration of ownership by the police is illegal
– The statute of limitations has not expired due to quarantine restrictions
3. Court Decision: Fully satisfy the claim of the Kyiv City Council and recover the administrative building from the National Police in favor of the territorial community of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditor claims of Limited Liability Company “Agrofirma “Nadiya” to Private Joint Stock Company “Company “Raiz” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 39,896,058.67 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that there is a connection between the creditor and the debtor through a common ultimate beneficial owner PERSON_1. Second, the copies of payment orders provided by the creditor are not proper evidence of actual payment. Third, bank account statements that could unequivocally confirm economic transactions were not submitted to the court at all.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and denied LLC “Agrofirma “Nadiya” in recognizing creditor claims.
Case No. 916/5751/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the acceptance-transfer act of immovable property and cancellation of state ownership registration.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The property acceptance-transfer act was executed on 26.02.2020, when the debt collection proceedings did not yet exist
– The violation act dated 22.08.2019 did not contain a calculation of the debt amount
– There is no evidence of the defendants’ intent to conceal property from recovery
– The mere interconnectedness of the defendants is not grounds for declaring the transaction fraudulent
3. Court decision: Reject the claim to declare the transaction invalid.
The court emphasized that recognizing a transaction as fraudulent requires a combination of circumstances, not just individual formal signs.
Case No. 757/26570/23-c dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Bank’s disclosure of information containing banking secrecy about the movement of funds on an individual entrepreneur’s accounts.
Main arguments of the court: First, the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Zaporizhzhia Oblast proved the impossibility of conducting a tax audit due to the taxpayer’s absence at the legal address. Second, all legally prescribed actions were taken to establish the taxpayer’s location, including sending official inquiries. Third, the court recognized the justified need to obtain banking information to enable verification of financial and economic activities.
Court decision: Partial satisfaction of the application – oblige the bank to provide information about the movement of funds on the individual entrepreneur’s accounts from January 1, 2017, to May 21, 2020.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Rayiz Company”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that part of the tax authority’s claims arose after the bankruptcy proceedings were opened, and therefore are current claims that cannot be recognized.
2. The penalty calculation provided by the creditor does not meet legislative requirements and does not contain a detailed justification for accruals.
3. The burden of proving the validity of creditor claims is directly placed on the creditor, who must provide appropriate and admissible evidence.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 918/1358/23 dated 11/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid a purchase and sale agreement and returning a radiation protection shelter of 90 sq. m to state ownership.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The court established that radiation protection shelter No. 67779 is a civil defense protective structure that could not be privatized. Registration cards and other evidence confirm that at the time of privatization, this premises had the status of a protective structure. Since protective structures are not subject to privatization, the claim is considered a negatory action – aimed at removing obstacles to using state property.
3. Court decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances satisfying the prosecutor’s claim and returning the radiation protection shelter to state ownership.
Key feature of the decision – clear determination of the impossibility of privatizing civil defense protective structures.
Case No. 757/18879/20-c dated 12/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid a purchase and sale agreement for an apartment and claiming its ownership for the territorial community of Kyiv as ownerless inheritance.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– After the owner PERSON_7’s death, no inheritance case was initiated, and no heirs are present
– The donation agreement, based on which further apartment transfers occurred, is forgedTranslation:
– PERSON_1 cannot be considered a bona fide acquirer, as they are connected to a person suspected of criminal offenses related to illegal property seizure
3. Court Decision:
– Denied invalidation of the purchase and sale agreement
– Declared the inheritance as abandoned and recovered the apartment in favor of the territorial community
: The court deviated from the previous practice of the Supreme Court regarding methods of protecting the territorial community’s interests in inheritance cases.
Case No. 521/7804/20 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cancellation of apartment reconstruction declarations and termination of ownership rights for a non-residential premises illegally reconstructed on a municipal land plot.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_1 carried out actual new construction of a real estate object with an area of 56.9 sq.m instead of apartment reconstruction, without obtaining necessary urban planning conditions and restrictions.
2. The object was built on a municipal land plot without appropriate permission, making it unauthorized construction.
3. PERSON_1 acted with the consent of her husband PERSON_2, therefore there are no grounds to consider that her husband’s rights were violated by his non-participation in the case.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution, refer the case for new consideration to the appellate instance for comprehensive assessment of case circumstances.
Case No. 240/32053/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: A serviceman challenges non-inclusion of additional remuneration established during martial law into calculation of health improvement allowance and material assistance for resolving social and domestic issues.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Additional remuneration established by Resolution No. 168 is a special temporary type of monetary provision during martial law with a compensatory purpose.
2. Normative acts clearly define that remunerations are not included in calculation of servicemen’s auxiliary payments.
3. The state must ensure social protection of servicemen, but within the limits established by legislation.
Court Decision: Maintain previous court decisions and reject the cassation complaint regarding inclusion of additional remuneration in auxiliary payments calculation.
Case No. 638/13875/19 dated 29/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident resulting in damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly restored the appeal term for KP “Shliakhrembud” more than two years after the first instance court decision. The court noted that the enterprise was notified about the case consideration, had the opportunity to appeal timely, and there were no force majeure circumstances preventing timely appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and res judicata (finality of court decisions).
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court resolution and ruling, and referred the case for new consideration to the appellate instance from the stage of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 17/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by Agricultural Limited Liability Company “Progress-Plus” to Private Joint Stock Company “Company “Raiz” in a bankruptcy case for the amount of 45,335,183.72 UAH.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court applied a heightened standard of proof1. Case regarding the invalidation of creditor claims due to the presence of related party signs (LLC “Progress-Plus” and PJSC “Raize Company” are controlled by the same person).
2. The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of actual economic transactions – in particular, bank account statements confirming money movement are absent.
3. It was established that the bank through which the transactions were carried out actually had no money movement on the enterprises’ accounts.
Court decision: Reject the recognition of creditor claims of LLC “Progress-Plus” for the amount of 45,335,183.72 UAH and leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 914/780/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Lviv City Council demanded that PE “Lorelei” vacate the land plot by restoring the reconstructed building to its original condition.
Main court arguments: First, the court established that PE “Lorelei” is the owner of real estate with an area of 48.3 sq.m. at Pidkova Square, 3, confirmed by technical passports from 2006 and 2024. Second, the expert examination confirmed that the building complies with technical passports and has not undergone significant changes. Third, the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of unauthorized reconstruction of the building.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and denied the Lviv City Council’s claim.
Case No. 454/962/21 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the dismissal of an employee (clerk) in connection with the reorganization of the village council.
Main court arguments:
1. The employer did not properly fulfill the requirements of legislation regarding the employee’s employment during reorganization.
2. During the dismissal period, there were vacant positions that could be occupied without a competition.
3. The status of the plaintiff as a single mother with a minor child was not taken into account.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Sokal City Council, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and sent the case for a new review.
It is important to note that the court pointed out the need for additional investigation of legal succession circumstances and the procedure for reorganization of legal entities.
Case No. 910/19615/23 dated 04/02/2025
1. Subject of dispute: Claiming a land plot of 2.2606 hectares with cadastral number 6820681500:05:005:0021 from state ownership in favor of the Vinkivtsi Settlement Council.
2. Main court arguments:
The Supreme Court indicated that the regional council’s decision from 04.04.2001 on granting a land plot to a forestry enterprise is valid and subject to execution. The absence of a state act for land use does not mean the absence of such right. Forest management planning and cartographic materials may confirm the right of permanent land use until 2027.
3. Court decision: Previous court decisions were canceled and the case was sent for a new review to the court of first instance for additional examination of case circumstances.
Case No. 758/17078/21 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of dispute: PERSON_1’s claim against JSC “UkrSibbank” to obligate debt restructuring under a credit agreement.
Main court arguments: The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusions that the plaintiff’s restructuring applications do not meet legal requirements, as they do not contain a complete set of necessary documents. In particular, the plaintiff did not provide information about real estate ownership, family composition, income, and other mandatory documents. Therefore, the bank is exempt from the obligation to conduct restructuring.
