Case No. 910/6213/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Presidium Decision of the Ukrainian Cycling Federation dated 14.10.2022.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_2 had the authority as First Vice President to conduct the Federation’s presidium meeting.
2. The Federation’s Charter does not prohibit conducting a meeting by poll and does not require a personal list of participants.
3. Previous court decisions regarding PERSON_1’s status as president were cancelled and therefore have no legal force.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to invalidate the Ukrainian Cycling Federation’s presidium decision.
The court confirmed the legitimacy of the presidium meeting and decisions made therein.
Case No. 199/3248/23 dated 19/02/2025
1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral and material damages caused to a person due to unlawful criminal prosecution.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– PERSON_1 was unlawfully under investigation and court proceedings for 109 months and 20 days
– Criminal proceedings were closed under rehabilitating circumstances
– Moral damage amount is determined considering principles of reasonableness and fairness
– Minimum compensation – 1 minimum wage for each month under investigation
– Court assigned compensation of 1,200,000 UAH as corresponding to case circumstances
3. Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on recovering 1,200,000 UAH in moral damages and reject material damages claim.
Case No. 240/19035/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Main Tax Administration Directive in Zhytomyr Region regarding license cancellation for retail fuel trade for LLC “Inter Eco Technology”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. License cancellation effectively deprives the company of its primary economic activity.
2. The company has 41 employees, including persons with disabilities, and complete cessation of activities would cause significant social harm.
3. Temporary suspension of the directive will preserve the existing situation until final court decision.
Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions suspending the license cancellation directive and reject the Main Tax Administration’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 917/781/20 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the Velykobahachka District State Administration Head’s directive on land lease transfer and land lease agreement.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Fodder lands transferred for lease were not subject to distribution and sharing, as meetings of land share owners decided to transfer these lands to state ownership.
2. The District State Administration lacked authority to dispose of this land parcel according to Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Procedure for Allocating Land Shares (Shares) in Kind”.
3. The directive and lease agreement were adopted/concluded in violation of current legislation, as the land parcel did not belong to undistributed or unclaimed land categories.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancelled the appellate court resolution, and maintained the local economic court’s decision invalidating the directive and land lease agreement.
Case No. 373/2169/23 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case regarding a person who committed multiple thefts and illegal entries into private properties during martial law.
Main Court Arguments: The court established that for one of the theft episodes(Bicycle Theft Valued at 950 UAH) Criminal Liability is Absent Due to Legislative Changes that Raised the Threshold Value of Property for Criminal Liability. At the Same Time, Due to the Method of Committing the Crime – Intrusion into Premises – the Person’s Actions Were Reclassified under the Article on Unlawful Entry into Housing. The Court Took into Account that the Purpose of Punishment is Not Only Punishment but Also Correction of the Convicted Person.
Court Decision: Reclassify the Person’s Actions and Impose a Punishment in the Form of Imprisonment for a Term of 6 Years.
Case No. 922/3346/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Dispute between Individual Entrepreneur Mihunov and JSC “Kharkivoblenergo” Regarding Recalculation of Volumes and Cost of Electrical Energy Distribution Services and Prohibition of Electricity Supply Termination.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Interim Measures Must Be Proportionate to the Claims and Not Violate the Rights of Other Persons.
2. The Proposed Prohibition of Electricity Supply Termination Does Not Affect the Determination of the Actual Debt Amount.
3. There is No Direct Connection Between the Interim Measure and the Subject of the Dispute, as the Prohibition Does Not Ensure Service Recalculation.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court Left the Cassation Complaint Unsatisfied, Supporting the Decision of the Appellate Commercial Court to Refuse Interim Measures.
Case No. 910/20158/23 dated 27/02/2025
Here is the Analysis of the Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ukrtransgaz’s Monetary Claims to Ukrbudivvestbank under a Bank Guarantee and Inclusion of These Claims in the Bank’s Creditor Register.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Bank Guarantee Has a Specific Nature and Arises When the Debtor Violates the Obligation and the Creditor Applies
– The Guarantee Payment Claim Was Filed After the Bank Liquidation Procedure Began
– The Law “On Deposit Guarantee System” Prohibits the Emergence of Additional Obligations During Bank Liquidation
– The Monetary Obligation under the Guarantee Did Not Exist at the Beginning of the Liquidation Procedure
3. Court Decision: Leave Ukrtransgaz’s Cassation Complaint Unsatisfied and Support the Appellate Court’s Ruling to Refuse Inclusion of Claims in the Creditor Register.
Case No. 910/4746/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Distribution of Court Expenses in the Case of State Registration Cancellation between PE “Voyage” and LLC “Lantanagra”.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court Established that the Plaintiff’s (PE “Voyage”) Actions Were Unjustified, as They Repeatedly Appealed to the Court with a Case that Already Had a Judicial Decision. The Defendant (LLC “Lantanagra”) Proved that They Incurred Court Expenses for Legal Assistance Amounting to 48,000 UAH, Which Are Justified Given the Lawyer’s Participation in Three Court Instances. The Court Found No Grounds to Reduce the Claimed Amount.
Court Decision: Recover from PE “Voyage” in Favor of LLC “Lantanagra” 48,000 UAH of Court Expenses for Professional Legal Assistance.
Case No. 645/5876/21 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Proceedings Against a Person Accused of Committing a Criminal Offense Provided by Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal Production, Manufacturing, Acquisition, Storage, Transportation, or Sending of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances, or Their Analogues without Intent to Sell).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Court Carefully Examined the Case Materials and Concluded that the Evidence Provided by the Prosecution is Sufficient and Convincing. The Appellate and District Courts of Previous Instances Correctly Established the Factual Circumstances of the Case and Gave a Proper Legal Assessment of the Accused’s Actions. The Defense Lawyer’s Cassation Complaint Does Not Contain Convincing Arguments That Could Change the Previous Judicial Decisions.
Court Decision: Leave the Verdict of the October District Court of the City of…Here is the translation of the text:
Leave the resolutions of Poltava Court of Appeal unchanged, and the defense counsel’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 607/10245/22 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the resolution of Ternopil Court of Appeal in a criminal case about violation of road traffic safety rules (Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considered that the previous resolution of the appellate court requires review. The court established certain procedural or material deficiencies in the appellate instance’s decision that affect the correctness of the judicial decision. The panel of judges concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a new appellate review for more detailed examination of the circumstances.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, cancel the resolution of Ternopil Court of Appeal, and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 482/815/21 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of defense counsel’s cassation appeal against the resolution of Odesa Court of Appeal on returning the appellate appeal against the verdict of Voznesensk City District Court.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate court improperly returned the appellate appeal. The appellate court’s decision does not comply with procedural norms and violates the convicted person’s right to appeal the verdict. The panel of judges believes that the appellate appeal should have been accepted and considered on its merits.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the resolution of Odesa Court of Appeal, and assign a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 164/1446/22 dated 28/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring unlawful and canceling the village council’s decision on transferring a land plot to private ownership, state land certificate, and ownership registration.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff did not prove that the village council’s decision and ownership registration violate their rights or legitimate interests.
2. The plaintiff is not an adjacent land user of the disputed land plot, as they reside in a different multi-apartment building.
3. Previously, the court established that the plaintiff had arbitrarily constructed a structure on the respondent’s land plot without any legal grounds.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 216/5506/14-ц dated 26/02/2025
Brief Analysis of the Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring public auction and property ownership certificate invalid, which was realized within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– At the time of the public auction, the court decision on the basis of which it was conducted was valid
– The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of auction procedure violation
– No grounds to consider the state executor’s and auction organizer’s actions illegal
– The plaintiff did not previously apply for a decision reversal
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 924/280/24 dated 27/02/2025
Analysis of the Court Decision:
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid the decisions of the General Meeting of Housing Construction Cooperative “Podilskyi Krai” and canceling the registration action on leadership change.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Extraordinary General Meeting was convened in compliance with legislation: initiated by more than one-third of cooperative members, plaintiff properly notified, quorum present (102 persons out of 146 members).
2. The plaintiff did not prove violation of their corporate rights – they were notified about the meeting and had an opportunity to participate.Participation.
3. There are no indisputable grounds for declaring the meeting decisions invalid.
Court decision: Reject the claim, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
Important: The court clearly adheres to the principle that not all procedural violations are grounds for canceling meeting decisions, but only those that actually violate participants’ rights.
Case No. 600/1873/24-а dated 27/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recalculation and payment of monetary assistance for health improvement and additional remuneration for a serviceman, taking into account the indexation of monetary support.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Courts of previous instances prematurely closed the proceedings, referring to alleged similarity with a previous case.
– The Supreme Court established that the grounds for the claim in this case differ from the previous one – in particular, it concerns the recalculation of payments taking into account indexation, which was accrued under a separate court decision.
– Courts did not conduct a proper analysis of the subject and grounds of the claim, which is critical for establishing case similarity.
3. Court decision: Cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Important: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough analysis of each case and ensuring effective access to justice.
Case No. 300/784/24 dated 27/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging decisions of the Ivano-Frankivsk Customs regarding adjustment of customs value for imported solar panels.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The customs authority did not provide specific substantiated reasons for doubting the declared customs value
– Discrepancies in documents (payment terms, cargo weight) are not grounds for changing the customs value
– Difference in price compared to previous customs clearances cannot automatically be considered a violation
– The Company provided all necessary documents to confirm the declared customs value
3. Court decision: Cancel the decision of the appellate court and uphold the decision of the first instance court, which satisfied the Company’s claim.
Case No. 533/351/22 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of family relations and recognizing ownership rights to inherited property (apartment) after the death of PERSON_4.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court noted that the appellate court prematurely canceled the district court decision without proper examination of all evidence in the case.
2. The Supreme Court noted that evidence of family relations can be diverse – from official documents to family photos and witness testimonies.
3. The appellate court unreasonably rejected the evidence of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 without detailed analysis, in particular, did not examine the notary’s resolution on refusal to issue an inheritance certificate.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance for comprehensive and thorough investigation of case circumstances.
Case No. 824/60/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute – recognition and permission for forced execution of the International Commercial Arbitration Court decision on collecting debt from a Ukrainian company in favor of an Azerbaijani company.
The court carefully analyzed the arguments of the parties and concluded that the arbitration court decision meets all procedural requirements. In particular, the arbitration proceedings procedure was verified, the absence of grounds for refusing recognition of the arbitration decision was established, and the legality and validity of the original arbitration decision were confirmed. The court paid special attention to the fact that the respondent did not provide convincing evidence to refute the arbitration decision.
The Supreme Court leftThe appellate complaint was left without satisfaction, and the previous decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding recognition and granting permission for forced execution of the arbitration award was upheld.Translation:
And recognition of the decision as invalid will not return the land plot to the state.
– The appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim for the recovery of the land plot.
– After registration of ownership rights for the cooperative, invalidation of the decision will not restore the state’s rights.
3. Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court’s resolution unchanged.
The Supreme Court essentially confirmed that a separate claim for recovery is required to return the land plot.
Case No. 420/17642/22 dated 27/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the communal enterprise’s inaction as unlawful regarding maintaining a civil protection shelter in an improper technical condition.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The prosecutor does not have the right to replace the authorized state authority in implementing state supervision measures during martial law.
2. The State Emergency Service and the regional military administration do not have the authority to file such claims.
3. Introduction of a moratorium on inspections does not mean inaction of authorities, but is a temporary restriction due to martial law.
Court Decision: To leave the prosecutor’s claim without consideration, canceling previous court decisions.
The court deviated from previous practice regarding representation of state interests by a prosecutor during martial law.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]and state acts on land ownership rights, which were transferred to PERSON_6 contrary to the rights of the plaintiff’s mother.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court incorrectly applied the statute of limitations, without investigating when exactly the plaintiff learned about the violation of their rights.
2. The court did not establish whether the statute of limitations was missed for valid reasons, contrary to the plaintiff’s claims.
3. The appellate court’s conclusions regarding the statute of limitations are contradictory – first, it pointed to a continuing offense, but then still renewed the statute of limitations.
Court decision: Revoke the resolution of the Lviv Appellate Court and send the case for a new review to the appellate court to properly resolve the issue of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 991/12632/24 dated 28/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of assets (residential house and land plot worth 2,635,802 UAH) of PERSON_1 as unjustified and their recovery in favor of the state.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The court established that the total legal income of the couple for 1998-2021 is 4,089,572.13 UAH
– The value of the disputed assets is 2,635,802.00 UAH
– The remaining savings amount to 1,453,770.13 UAH
– The defendants provided evidence of the possibility of accumulating funds
– The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence of illegal origin of funds
3. Court decision: Completely reject the claim to recognize assets as unjustified.
Important: The court recognized that PERSON_1 violated financial control requirements by not declaring available monetary assets, but this does not affect the legality of the origin of funds.
Case No. 401/2766/21 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Consideration of the defender’s cassation appeal against the verdict in a criminal case on a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (light bodily injuries).
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, recognizing the need to revoke the decision on the civil claim and send this part for a new review in civil proceedings. The court established that the previous judicial instances incorrectly resolved the issue of the civil claim, while not finding grounds for revoking the verdict in the criminal part. The panel of judges concluded that the verdict and the appellate ruling in the criminal part comply with the requirements of the legislation.
Court decision: Cassation appeal partially satisfied, civil claim sent for a new review, in the rest – previous court decisions left unchanged.
Case No. 443/275/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Invalidation of a land lease agreement for a plot of 19.3368 hectares, concluded between the Zhuravne Settlement Council and PERSON_1.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The prosecutor has the right to apply to the court in the interests of the state if the local self-government body does not take measures to protect state interests.
2. In this case, the Zhuravne Settlement Council does not plan to protect its interests, which is confirmed by an official letter.
3. The prosecutor provided justification for the violation of state interests and the need to protect them, identified the body authorized to exercise state functions in the disputed legal relations.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the resolution of the Lviv Appellate Court – unchanged.
Case No. 482/815/21 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Appealing the ruling of the Odesa Appellate Court on returning the defender’s appellate appeal in a criminal case about grievous bodily harm that caused the death of the victim.
Main arguments of the court: The appellate court improperly considered the appellate appeal on the merits at the stage of its acceptance, actually pre-evaluating evidence,Goes beyond the court’s powers at this stage. The court indicated that at the stage of complaint acceptance, issues that should be considered directly during the appellate proceedings cannot be resolved. The appellate court unreasonably returned the defender’s complaint, violating procedural norms.
Court decision: The Cassation Court satisfied the defender’s complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 300/6142/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the order of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service on cancellation of licenses for retail sale of alcoholic beverages for LLC “LEGENDA-F”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. License cancellation may significantly complicate the company’s economic activity, in particular lead to suspension of restaurant operations, inability to pay salaries and sell goods.
2. Temporary suspension of the order does not resolve the dispute on the merits, but only temporarily preserves the company’s situation.
3. The court took into account that the main type of activity of the company is directly related to the availability of relevant licenses.
Court decision: To leave unchanged the previous court decisions on suspension of the order regarding cancellation of licenses for LLC “LEGENDA-F”.
Case No. 203/4160/21 dated 19/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: PERSON_1’s claim to declare illegal his detention in a psychiatric hospital and recover moral damages from the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council cannot bear subsidiary liability for the actions of a municipal enterprise, as the legislation does not provide for automatic liability of the founder for the enterprise’s obligations.
– The plaintiff did not prove that the regional council caused him moral damage.
– The municipal enterprise is responsible for its obligations independently, and subsidiary liability may arise only if intentional bankruptcy is proven by the founder.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and refused to satisfy the claim for recovery of moral damages from the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council.
Case No. 711/494/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring invalid the land plot donation agreement concluded by the debtor during the existence of unfulfilled credit obligations.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The court established that at the time of concluding the donation agreement, the debtor had sufficient other property (vehicles) under arrest that could be used to repay the credit debt.
2. The donation agreement did not show signs of fraudulence, as it was not aimed at completely avoiding fulfillment of obligations to the creditor.
3. The creditor’s rights were fully protected by the arrested property of the debtor, therefore the donation agreement did not violate the bank’s interests.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left unsatisfied the cassation complaint of PrivatBank and supported the decisions of previous court instances on refusal to declare the donation agreement invalid.
Case No. 756/2259/17 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of the state executor and court decisions regarding return of the executive document without acceptance for execution.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The appellate court incorrectly refused to open appellate proceedings, as it did not take into account that the court decision was not properly served to the applicant.
2. Decisive for the start of the term for appellate appeal is precisely the service of the full court decision, and not familiarization with it in the court decisions register.
3. The court should assist the participants of the case in exercising their procedural rights, avoiding excessive formalism.
Court decision: Cassation compHere is the translation of the legal text from Ukrainian to English:
To grant the argument, cancel the appellate court’s ruling, and remand the case for a new review to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 385/649/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Lawsuit for deprivation of parental rights of a mother in relation to her minor son.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure applied only in exceptional cases. Second, the court did not find indisputable evidence of the mother’s deliberate evasion of parental responsibilities. Third, even the mother herself gave consent to the deprivation of parental rights, but the court believed that this could negatively affect the child’s interests.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and denied the lawsuit for deprivation of parental rights.
Case No. 361/6218/17 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s appeal against a court decision on releasing a driver from serving a suspended sentence after a traffic accident with serious bodily injuries.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment is fair. Several factors were taken into account: the defendant’s admission of guilt, sincere remorse, assistance in the investigation, positive characteristics from the probation service, and the victims’ opinion. The court emphasized that punishment aims not only to punish but also to correct the person, and in this case, it is possible to achieve this goal without actual imprisonment.
Court Decision: Leave the previous court decisions unchanged and reject the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 381/1312/20 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in the appellate court’s decision. First, the appellate court made premature conclusions about the inadmissibility of evidence without a thorough analysis of the case materials. Second, the court did not consider that the search was conducted within another criminal proceeding where an investigative group was defined. Third, the appellate court did not adhere to the procedural law requirements regarding the motivation of its decision.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 910/19953/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid a unilateral transaction on termination of obligations by offsetting counter-homogeneous claims between JSC “Lvivgaz” and LLC “Gas TSO of Ukraine”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that at the time of the transaction, there was a dispute between the parties regarding the existence and size of obligations under the natural gas transportation agreement.
2. The condition of indisputability of the claims being offset was not met, as the parties had an uncoordinated position regarding the fulfillment of obligations during the disputed period.
3. Previous court decisions in cases related to this contract also confirmed the existence of a dispute between the parties.
Court Decision: Leave unchanged the decisions of previous instances on declaring the unilateral transaction invalid.
Case No. 907/910/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of unjustifiably retained funds for using municipal land plots.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that LLC “Svalyava LHZ 2018” purchased real estate in October 2018, which is located on municipal land plots.
2. The defendant did not conclude a lease agreement and did not pay funds for using the land plots throughoutTranslation:
3. The court partially satisfied the claim, recovering funds for the period from November 2019 to June 2022, refusing to recover for the period from November 2018 to October 2019 due to statute of limitations expiration.
Court decision: Leave previous court decisions unchanged and deny LLC “Svalyava LHZ 2018” in reviewing the case based on newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 911/1584/23 dated 18/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Recovery of rent debt for a land plot from mining enterprise LLC “SIPAN”.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The mining enterprise has the right to pay rent at a preferential rate of 0.75% of the normative monetary land valuation, as provided by paragraph 284.4 of Article 284 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.
2. To apply the preferential rate, no separate amendments to the lease agreement are required – it is sufficient to prove the enterprise belongs to the mining industry.
3. The defendant correctly paid rent at the preferential rate, therefore no debt exists.
Court decision: Deny recovery of rent debt, leave previous court decisions unchanged.
[The rest of the text follows the same translation approach]Case No. 230/10892/13-k dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Fraud involving the issuance and subsequent revocation of bus powers of attorney with the intent to misappropriate the victim’s funds.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_7 intentionally, with mercenary motives, under the guise of selling buses, provided powers of attorney to the victim PERSON_10 and then revoked them.
2. Evidence in the case, including witness testimonies, bank documents, and powers of attorney, confirm that the person intended to misappropriate funds amounting to 300,000 UAH through deception.
3. The court thoroughly analyzed the defense’s version of civil legal relations and refuted it, proving the intent to commit fraud.
Court Decision: To leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, cassation complaints – without satisfaction.
Case No. 753/19205/21 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions and inaction of a state executor regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and imposing arrest on the debtor’s property.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_1’s complaint concerns enforcement proceedings No. NUMBER_2 for collecting an enforcement fee in favor of the state.
2. According to current legislation, cases challenging state executor’s rulings on collecting enforcement fees fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts.
3. Previous instance courts incorrectly considered the case under civil proceedings, without paying attention to the jurisdiction issue.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court closed the proceedings in the case and explained to PERSON_1 the right to apply to an administrative court.
Case No. 914/619/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for consumed electric energy from the State Customs Service of Ukraine in favor of LLC “SK ENERGY GROUP”.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the legal grounds for recovering professional legal assistance costs, guided by commercial court proceedings principles. The court established that the claimed costs of 15,000 UAH are proportionate to the case complexity, volume of legal services provided, and meet reasonableness criteria. The panel of judges considered that cassation review was initiated by the State Customs Service, and the lawyer’s fee was previously agreed upon by the parties in the contract.
Court Decision: The court satisfied LLC “SK ENERGY GROUP”‘s application and recovered 15,000 UAH of professional legal assistance costs from the State Customs Service of Ukraine in the cassation instance.
Case No. 374/266/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid a mortgage termination agreement concluded between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 on December 9, 2019.
Main Court Arguments:
IMPORTANT: The Supreme Court established that the plaintiff (PERSON_1) has no right to demand the agreement be declared invalid under Article 225 of the Civil Code, as this right exclusively belongs to the person who did not understand the significance of their actions (PERSON_2). The court emphasized that to declare a transaction invalid, it is necessary to prove a violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights, which was not proven in this case.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied PERSON_2’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and left the first instance court’s decision unchanged, i.e., rejected the claim to declare the agreement invalid.
Case No. 461/15229/13 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Fraud and legalization of funds obtained through criminal means, committed by the pastor of the “Embassy of God” church PERSON_11 in 2007-2008.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_11, using victims’ trust, misappropriated funds totaling 3,587,190 UAH, having the intentTranslation:
1. He did not intend to return the money from the very beginning.
2. The court proved that the accused deliberately misled the victims under the pretext of providing a loan, actually having no intention of returning the funds.
3. PERSON_11’s actions were qualified as fraud and legalization of criminal proceeds, as he invested the received funds in real estate registered to other persons.
Court decision: Leave the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and release PERSON_11 from punishment due to the expiration of statute of limitations.
Case No. 496/4224/23 dated 25/02/2025
The case concerns state treason by a serviceman who transmitted information about military facilities to Russian intelligence.
The court carefully analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment of 15 years of imprisonment is fair. The main arguments were: the especially grave nature of the crime committed under martial law, potential threat to national security, and that mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance, partial assistance in disclosure) are not sufficient for significant punishment reduction.
The Supreme Court decided to leave previous court decisions unchanged, fully supporting the position of lower instance courts.
Case No. 991/7187/24 dated 27/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of assets (apartment and three vehicles) of a civil servant PERSON_1 as unjustified and their recovery in favor of the state.
2. Main court arguments:
– PERSON_1 as a civil servant acquired assets worth 5,185,000 hryvnias, significantly exceeding his official income
– It was established that vehicles and apartment were actually purchased by order and in the interests of PERSON_1
– Respondents could not prove the legal origin of funds for property acquisition
– The difference between asset value and declared income is over 4.2 million hryvnias
3. Court decision:
– Recognize apartment and two vehicles as unjustified assets to be recovered in state revenue
– Recover from PERSON_1 monetary compensation for the third vehicle amounting to 1,389,000 hryvnias
[The translation continues in the same manner for the remaining text, maintaining the legal terminology and structure of the original Ukrainian document.]
