Case No. 910/3884/24 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Obligation for Goods Delivery under State Contract as Fulfilled and Terminated.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff refers to a significant change of circumstances due to force majeure circumstances of a foreign supplier, but this is not a basis for terminating the obligation under the law.
2. A significant change of circumstances may be a basis for amending the contract or terminating it, but not terminating the obligation, which was not the subject of dispute in this case.
3. None of the legally prescribed grounds for terminating obligations was identified by the plaintiff as the basis for the claim, therefore the court correctly rejected the claim.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 917/2139/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recovery of 68,316.77 US dollars between two limited liability companies.
The court carefully analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that partial recovery of penalty is unjustified. The panel of judges established that the amount of accrued penalty requires review, as it does not correspond to the principles of fairness and proportionality. The Supreme Court drew attention to the need to verify the correctness of calculations and circumstances of penalty sanctions accrual.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the recovery of 5,533 US dollars and 94 cents of penalty, and send this part of the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 911/1195/23 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute:
The dispute concerns a land plot of 11.6113 hectares, which the Kozyn Village Council leased to LLC “Zatyshnе”, and the prosecutor is attempting to challenge this decision and the lease agreement.
Main Court Arguments:
The court established that the land plot belongs to residential development lands, not water fund lands. A similar claim was previously considered in case No. 911/61/17, where the prosecutor was denied. Moreover, the court took into account expert opinions and previous court decisions confirming the legality of transferring the land plot for lease.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings and left previous court decisions unchanged, essentially supporting the lower courts’ position on the prosecutor’s claim being improper.
Case No. 910/4455/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: The company challenges the forced seizure of its property (auto parts) by a military unit during martial law.
Main Court Arguments:
– Forced seizure of property during martial law is legal if carried out in accordance with a special law
– The plaintiff did not provide irrefutable proof of property ownership
– The request to cancel the seizure order is an ineffective method of protection, as the order has already been executed
– The court believes the plaintiff incorrectly chose a method of protecting their rights
Court Decision: Completely reject the company’s claim and close cassation proceedings.
Case No. 910/13192/24 dated 18/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid the purchase and sale agreement of rights to use subsoil of the Pynyazevytskyi deposit.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Special permit for useSubsoil Use Has Specific Nature: Court Legal Analysis
1. Subsoil use has a specific nature – its value depends on the volume of minerals, and prolonged extraction reduces its value.
2. The State Geological Service’s prohibition on amending the permit is an adequate measure of securing a claim, as it prevents further alienation of subsoil rights.
3. There is a risk of devaluing the disputed asset due to potential further mineral extraction before resolving the dispute on its merits.
Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions and reject the State Geological Service’s request to cancel the prohibition on amending the special permit.
Important: The court emphasized the uniqueness of the special subsoil use permit as a special type of asset.
Case No. 903/417/24 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of ownership through acquisitive prescription for a cement warehouse of 439.8 sq. m in Lutsk city.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The prosecutor provided no evidence that PJSC “Lutskavtodor” plans to alienate the disputed premises.
2. The court established that the premises have been in actual use by the company since the 90s, confirming the consistency of its economic use.
3. The prosecutor’s reference solely to the fact of a court decision is not sufficient grounds for securing the claim.
Court Decision: Reject the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and leave the previous appellate court ruling unchanged.
Case No. 910/17727/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recovery of monetary funds between Limited Liability Company “Ovid Wind” and State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer”.
The court carefully analyzed the additional resolution of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court and concluded that the previous decision contained certain procedural or substantive deficiencies. The Supreme Court panel drew attention to case details requiring additional interpretation or review. The court’s reasoning was based on a detailed examination of case materials and current legislation.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” and canceled the additional resolution of the Northern Commercial Appellate Court.
Case No. 560/8133/24 dated 19/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging a tax notification-decision issued by the Main Tax Administration in Khmelnytskyi Region regarding LLC “Promin Podillia”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court instances correctly assessed evidence and adhered to tax legislation norms. The panel of judges considered arguments from both plaintiff and defendant and established that there are no grounds for canceling or modifying previous court decisions. Procedural compliance in issuing the tax notification-decision was fundamentally important.
The Supreme Court left the appellate administrative court’s resolution unchanged and rejected the Tax Administration’s cassation appeal, effectively confirming the legitimacy of previous court decisions.
Case No. 911/842/24 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under an electricity purchase and sale agreement, including principal debt, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Established PJSC “CENTRENERGO” violated contractual obligations regarding refunding money for undelivered electricity
– The court recognized the legitimacy of charging 3% per annum and inflationHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
Compensation for Monetary Losses in Accordance with Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine
– The amount of accrued interest is recognized as justified, as it does not exceed the principal debt
– The court took into account the principles of reasonableness and fairness in determining the amount of recovery
3. Court Decision: Uphold the decision of previous instances and reject the cassation appeal of PJSC “CENTRENERGO”.
Case No. 912/826/23 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Limited Liability Company “Alex Trade” filed a lawsuit against the Regional Communal Production Enterprise “Dnipro-Kirovohrad” on the obligation to perform certain actions.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that the previous judicial instances (Central Commercial Court of Appeal) correctly assessed the circumstances of the case. The court took into account all provided evidence and arguments of the parties, recognizing the position of LLC “Alex Trade” as substantiated. The panel of judges concluded that there are no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeal of the communal enterprise.
Court Decision: The cassation appeal of RCPE “Dnipro-Kirovohrad” was left unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate court was left unchanged.
Case No. 903/1130/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring Limited Liability Company “Sotik Agro” bankrupt and opening liquidation proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Financial analysis showed persistent insolvency of the enterprise: losses for 2023 amounted to 17.38 million UAH, sales volume decreased by 32.9 million UAH.
2. Creditors’ meeting did not make a decision on rehabilitation and did not submit a rehabilitation plan.
3. Inventory of property had certain shortcomings but did not refute the conclusion about the inability to restore the enterprise’s solvency.
Court Decision: Declare Limited Liability Company “Sotik Agro” bankrupt and open liquidation proceedings for a period of 12 months.
Case No. 917/453/22 dated 19/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring the state registration of private ownership rights by JSC “Ukrposhta” for a non-residential premises previously owned by the state as illegal.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Corporatization of a state enterprise is not privatization
– Transfer of property to the authorized capital does not change the form of ownership
– State property remains state-owned, even after the creation of a joint-stock company
– Alienation of such property is possible only through privatization
3. Court Decision: Satisfied the prosecutor’s claim – canceled the state registration of private ownership rights of JSC “Ukrposhta” and recognized ownership rights for the state.
Note: The court deviated from previous judicial practice regarding the change of ownership of state property.
Case No. 903/347/24 dated 12/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of creditors’ monetary claims in the bankruptcy case of the State Enterprise “Research Farm ‘Victory'”.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court confirmed monetary claims of LLC “Zakhid-Ahro-Tekhnika” and LLC “LIV-Technik” as they are confirmed by court decisions.
– Note: The court stated that undisputed creditor claims can be reviewed only in exceptional cases.
– Regarding the claims of LLC “Trading Enterprise ‘Agrohim-Partner'”, the court pointed to the need for additional investigation of primary documents.
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassationComplaint – to leave unchanged the decision regarding the claims of LLC “Zakhid-Agro-Tekhnika” and LLC “LIV-Tekhnik”, to cancel the decision regarding the claims of LLC “Trading Enterprise “Agrohim-Partner” and send the case for a new review.Use of the Entire Land Plot Area
3. Court Decision: Deny the establishment of a land easement.
Additional Important Detail: The court strictly adheres to the letter of the law, not allowing any exceptions regarding the land plot put up for auction.
Case No. 906/906/21 dated 20/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recovery of 309,530,949.04 UAH between gas transmission and gas distribution operators.
The court carefully analyzed the parties’ relationships in the gas supply sphere. The main arguments were evidence regarding gas transportation settlements, specifically primary documents and work completion certificates. The panel of judges thoroughly examined the parties’ financial claims, evaluated the provided evidence, and concluded that there were no grounds for fully satisfying the claims.
The Supreme Court left both parties’ cassation appeals unsatisfied and supported the previous decisions of the appellate commercial court.
Case No. 903/1130/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of monetary claims by creditor LLC “Soufflet Agro Ukraine” against debtor LLC “Sotik Agro” in a bankruptcy case.
Main Court Arguments:
1) The court considered that the statute of limitations was extended due to COVID-19 quarantine and suspended due to martial law, therefore the creditor’s monetary claims were submitted within the timeframe.
2) It was established that the debtor’s debt amounts to 5,524,002.38 UAH under an agricultural product supply agreement.
3) The court verified and recognized the creditor’s calculations of inflation losses and annual interest as correct.
Court Decision: Leave the arbitration manager’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and keep the appellate court’s resolution unchanged, i.e., recognize LLC “Soufflet Agro Ukraine’s” monetary claims as substantiated.
Case No. 916/5753/23 dated 11/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a service provision agreement between the “Military Trade Service” Concern and Individual Entrepreneur Dimitrov, which is actually a hidden state property lease agreement.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The agreement is a simulated transaction, as it actually provides for transfer of possession and use of immovable property, characteristic of a lease agreement
– The parties concealed the lease agreement under the guise of a storage agreement
– The procedure for transferring state property for lease was not followed when concluding the agreement
– The agreement does not contain essential lease agreement terms, particularly the lease payment amount
3. Court Decision: Declare the agreement invalid and oblige Individual Entrepreneur Dimitrov to vacate the leased premises.
The court decision was made in favor of the state represented by the prosecutor’s office.
Case No. 910/11334/23 dated 18/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 7,236,000 UAH in damages from the state budget, allegedly caused by unlawful actions of the Kyiv Customs during cargo clearance.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff paid penalty sanctions to the carrier for vehicle downtime
– However, the court established that these sanctions had no legal grounds, since:
a) The contract parties acknowledged the plaintiff’s lack of fault in the downtime
b) Penalties can only be levied in the presence of fault
c) The payment cannot be considered damages, as it had no objective basis
3. Court Decision: Deny recovery of 7,236,000 UAH from the state budget.
The court essentially deviated from previous judicial practice of automatic damage recovery.
