Case No. 760/8067/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the bank’s orders on suspension of an employee from work and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The employee’s suspension from work occurred without legal grounds, as there was no investigative judge’s decision on suspension from the position.
2. The fact of being notified of suspicion in criminal proceedings is not an automatic basis for suspension from work without salary retention.
3. The bank actually acknowledged the groundlessness of the suspension by allowing the employee to return to work 8 months after issuing the suspension order.
Court Decision: To uphold the appellate court’s resolution on cancellation of suspension orders and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence in the amount of 1,632,691.22 UAH in favor of the employee.
Case No. 199/9901/22 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claiming a land plot and cancellation of state registration of land lease rights obtained by PERSON_1.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the prosecutor did not provide convincing evidence of document forgery on the basis of which PERSON_1 obtained the land plot. Second, ownership is presumed lawful unless proven otherwise, and in this case, there are no indisputable proofs of unlawful acquisition of ownership. Third, the court considered that the land plot’s alienation was not proven to have occurred outside the owner’s will.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaints unsatisfied and supported previous court decisions refusing to claim the land plot.
Case No. 260/4199/22 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s claim to a municipal enterprise to bring a civil protection shelter to a state of readiness.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The State Emergency Service does not have a legally established right to independently apply to court with such claims
– The prosecutor cannot substitute the authority responsible for protection functions
– Even with recent legislative changes, there are no clear grounds for the State Emergency Service’s lawsuit to bring a protective shelter to readiness
– The prosecutor can represent state interests only in exceptional cases and under clearly defined conditions
Court Decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Key Conclusion: The prosecutor cannot apply to court instead of an authorized body if that body has powers but does not exercise them.
Case No. 120/379/21-а dated 28/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the court ruling on returning the appellate complaint due to missed procedural term and use of offensive language.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff did not show proper interest in timely appealing the court decision
– The electronic address was provided by the plaintiff himself, so he should have been aware of the court decision
– Appellate complaints and statements contained disrespectful expressions about the court and judges
– The plaintiff did not provide convincing reasons for missing the appellate appeal term
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 362/6561/21 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of moral damages from a driver who caused the death of a minor’s father in a road accident.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The defendant in a case of damage compensation from a source of increased danger is the person who directly operated the vehicle (in this case, PERSON_3).
2. The obligation to compensate damage arises for the perpetrator regardless of fault, as it concerns a source of increased danger.
3. The appellate court incorrectly considered the driver an improper defendant, whereas he should bear responsibility for the damage caused.
Court Decision: Cancel the Kyiv Appellate Court’s resolution and send the case for new consideration to the appellate instance.
Case No. 500/1289/23 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: A State Border Guard Service serviceman challenges incomplete payment of additional remuneration for participation in combat operations during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. CMU Resolution No. 168 provides additional remuneration to servicemen for direct participation in combat operations or ensuring national security measures.
2. Order of the State Border Guard Service Administration No. 628-AG unreasonably narrowed the grounds for receiving remuneration by adding a requirement of “fire damage or direct contact with the enemy”.
3. The fact of a serviceman’s presence in the combat area and performance of official tasks is sufficient grounds for receiving increased remuneration.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim and oblige the military unit to pay the plaintiff additional remuneration for participation in combat operations in full.
Case No. 910/5663/22 (910/7708/17) dated 07/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Termination of the share purchase agreement for PJSC “Ukrtelekom” due to non-fulfillment of investment obligations by the buyer.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court established that although LLC “ESU” did not formally invest directly, it ensured investment through PJSC “Ukrtelekom” totaling over 800 million dollars
– Investments were actually directed towards enterprise development, which became profitable after privatization
– Contract violation is not essential, as the state did not suffer real losses
Court Decision: Refuse to terminate the share purchase agreement.
Conclusion: The court clearly determined that not every formal violation of privatization contract terms can be grounds for its termination.
Case No. 808/3367/17 dated 28/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging a tax notification-decision on additional profit tax and VAT for transactions with the contractor LLC “Progress Resource Group”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court deviated from the previous position that an enterprise with signs of fictitiousness is automatically deprived of the right to business transactions.
2. The existence of a verdict against the contractor’s director is not an indisputable proof of the unreality of business transactions.
3. The court must comprehensively investigate primary documents, asset movement, and the reality of business activity.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for detailed examination of all case circumstances.
Case No. 522/18779/15-ц dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from an individual.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The bank provided evidence of credit agreement conclusion and credit funds provision.
2. The defendant does not dispute the fact of receiving the credit but did not provide any proof of full or partial debt repayment.
3. The court established that from December 31, 2010, the borrower made no payments, despite the credit return deadline of October 29, 2014.
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on recovering from the defendant the debt under the credit agreement amounting to 18,071.50 USD and penalty of 160,633.19 UAH.
Case No. 120/3228/24 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the inaction of the Vinnytsia Local Center for Providing Free Secondary Legal Aid regarding consideration of a person’s application.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the appellate court correctly returned the appellate complaint due to improper confirmation of the person’s property status for court fee exemption.
2. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of income absence for the entire 2023, despite court explanations about necessary documents.
3. Complaint return does not violate the right to judicial protection but ensures procedural norms and proper implementation of the right to appellate appeal.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling unchanged.
