Case No. 907/947/22 dated April 8, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession, namely the building of a transformer substation, and the cancellation of the decision on state registration of ownership of this building by the defendant.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the disputed building of the transformer substation (ZTP No. 28g) belonged to the plaintiff by right of ownership, since it was transferred to the statutory fund of DAEK “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” in the process of corporatization, the successor of which is the plaintiff. The courts found that the defendant did not provide any evidence of the lawful acquisition of ownership of the disputed building, but included it in its property without proper legal grounds. The court rejected the arguments of the National Bank of Ukraine (third party) that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law when accepting evidence and incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, since these arguments did not refute the circumstances established by the courts regarding the plaintiff’s ownership of the disputed property. Regarding the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” against the additional ruling on the refusal to recover the costs of legal aid, the court also dismissed it, emphasizing that the current legislation does not provide for the recovery of the costs of professional legal aid from a third party that does not assert independent claims, even if its appeal was rejected.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the National Bank of Ukraine and Private Joint-Stock Company “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 907/947/22 dated April 8, 2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs incurred by PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” in the Supreme Court during the consideration of cassation appeals by the National Bank of Ukraine and PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” itself.
2. The court refused to satisfy the applications of PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” for the distribution of court costs, guided by the following. Since the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Zakarpattiaoblenergo” was dismissed, the costs of professional legal assistance are not subject to reimbursement. Regarding the NBU’s cassation appeal, the court noted that the current procedural law does not prohibit the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from a third party that does not assert independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, but filed a cassation appeal, the claims of which were not satisfied. However, the court believes that placing the burden of paying legal aid costs on the party to the dispute, and not on the third party that appealed the decision, does notis to the principles of proportionality and the rule of law. Such an approach may lead to abuse of procedural rights by third parties who file unfounded complaints without bearing the risk of covering costs. In addition, it puts the defendant, who has admitted the claim, at a disadvantage, as they may still be forced to reimburse legal costs if the decision is appealed by a third party.
3. The court ruled to dismiss both applications of PrJSC “Zakarpattyaoblenergo” regarding the distribution of legal costs.
Case No. 520/11968/23 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the tax authority’s actions regarding the recovery of VAT tax debt from “Kharkivoblenergo” accounts without prior crediting of these funds to the taxpayer’s electronic account in the electronic VAT administration system (SEА VAT).
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of lower courts, was guided by the following arguments:
* The Tax Code of Ukraine (TCU) distinguishes between the mechanisms for recovering funds to repay tax debt: withdrawal of cash and debiting of funds from accounts in banks.
* The term “withdrawal” is used exclusively for cash, not non-cash funds.
* The obligation to credit the recovered funds to the account in SEА VAT applies only to withdrawn cash, and not to any forcibly recovered funds from bank accounts.
* Crediting funds to an electronic account in SEА VAT in a manner not provided for in paragraph 200-1.4 of Article 200-1 of the TCU is not established by current legislation.
* The court took into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which stated that in the event of recovery of VAT tax debt by debiting funds from the taxpayer’s current accounts in the bank based on collection orders of the controlling authority, there is no obligation to credit the specified amount of funds to the account in SEА VAT.
* The court noted that the lower courts did not investigate the circumstances of the actual existence of discrepancies between the data of the integrated taxpayer card (ITС) and the account in SEА VAT, and also did not justify why the obligation of the State Tax Service of Ukraine to send correcting registers is a proper and effective way to protect the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of lower courts in the part of satisfying the claims regarding the recognition of the tax authority’s actions as unlawful and the obligation to increase the registration limit in SEА VAT, and in this part issued a new decision to dismiss the claim, and in the part of the claims regarding the obligation of the State Tax Service to send correcting registers – sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
1. The subject of the dispute is the actions of the tax authority regarding the recovery of VAT tax debt from the accounts of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo” without prior crediting of these funds to the taxpayer’s electronic account in the electronic VAT administration system (SEА VAT).
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeals of the tax service, noted that the key question is whether the controlling body is obliged to forcibly recover funds from the taxpayer’s accounts in the bank to pay off VAT tax debt, first crediting them to the taxpayer’s account in the SEА VAT. The court emphasized that the Tax Code of Ukraine (Tax Code of Ukraine) distinguishes between mechanisms for collecting funds in cash and non-cash forms. The concept of “seizure”, which is used in the Tax Code of Ukraine, applies exclusively to cash, and not to non-cash funds. Accordingly, the obligation to credit the recovered funds to the account in the SEА VAT applies only to seized cash. The court also referred to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, which stated that in the case of VAT tax debt collection by debiting funds from the taxpayer’s current accounts by collection orders of the controlling body, there is no obligation to credit these funds to the account in the SEА VAT. In addition, the Supreme Court pointed out the errors of the courts of previous instances regarding the obligation of the State Tax Service to send correcting registers, since the courts did not check for discrepancies between the data of the integrated card and the account in the SEА VAT at the time of the case consideration.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, canceled the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of recognizing the actions of the tax authority as illegal and obliging to increase the registration limit in the SEА VAT, and in this part adopted a new decision to refuse to satisfy the claim, and in the part of obliging the State Tax Service to send correcting registers – sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 815/4618/17 of April 11, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions by which Eco-Renaissance LLC increased the amount of tax liability for VAT and determined the amount of overestimation of the negative value that is credited to the tax credit.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that to confirm the tax credit, it is necessary to prove the reality of business operations, which involves the actual movement of assets or changes in the property status of the taxpayer. The court found that Eco-Renaissance LLC did not provide sufficient evidence of the counterparties (Promtehservis PP and Etalon MPP) having the necessary resources to perform the work, and also did not confirm the actualno changes in their property status as a result of these transactions. In particular, no evidence was provided of the counterparties acquiring the necessary materials (wheels for container repair), nor was there evidence of their having production facilities and personnel. The court also took into account that the oral agreement between Eko-Renesans LLC and Promtekhservice Private Enterprise contradicted the requirements of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the form of transactions between legal entities. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments that the tax authority had not filed a lawsuit to invalidate the transaction, since the court of appeal did not refer to the invalidity of the transaction, but only stated the non-compliance of the contract form with the requirements of the law.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of Eko-Renesans LLC, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 813/3523/17 dated 04/11/2025
Good day! Here is my analysis of the court decision, as promised.
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the tax authority to exclude the credit union from the Register of Non-Profit Institutions and Organizations.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which overturned the decision of the tax authority to exclude the credit union from the register of non-profit organizations. The courts found that the credit union met the requirements for non-profit organizations at the time of exclusion from the register, and its constituent documents contained all the necessary provisions. The tax authority did not provide evidence of the credit union’s non-compliance with these requirements, but only reported technical problems with the software. The court also noted that a similar legal position had already been stated in previous decisions of the Supreme Court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 918/297/24 dated 04/02/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of concluded additional agreements to land lease agreements regarding the normative monetary valuation and the amount of rent.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, but with a different motivation. The court noted that giving retroactive effect to the terms of additional agreements is contrary to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The key point was that the change in the normative monetary valuation of land is not a basis for amending the lease agreement, as this is regulated by law automatically. The court emphasized that the land lease agreement is a civil law agreement, and the change in the normative monetary valuation is a condition precedent that automatically changes
that do not create new obligations, but only specify the existing rights and obligations of the parties without the need to amend the text of the agreement. The court also referred to the fact that in case of a dispute regarding the amount of rent, there are other appropriate ways to protect rights, such as a claim for recovery or for the absence of the right to demand payment in a larger amount. The court also noted that the normative monetary valuation cannot be a condition of the contract.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s decision and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claims for recognition of additional agreements as concluded.
**Case No. 757/23925/17-к dated 04/11/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is bringing a witness to administrative responsibility for contempt of court, expressed in disobeying the presiding judge’s orders and violating the order during the court session.
2. The court justified its decision on the grounds that witness PERSON_1 during the interrogation in the criminal proceedings repeatedly spoke incorrectly, used obscene language, behaved rudely, interrupted the participants in the process, and did not respond to the presiding judge’s remarks. The court noted that such actions indicate contempt of court, which is an administrative offense under Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine. The court took into account the witness’s explanation, who apologized for his behavior, but emphasized that the intentionality of the witness’s actions is confirmed by ignoring the presiding judge’s remarks. The court also referred to the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” and the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which define responsibility for contempt of court. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a quick and impartial trial, which was complicated by the witness’s actions. The court also took into account that the witness lives abroad, and a delay in the consideration of the case on administrative offense could make it impossible to complete his interrogation.
3. The court found PERSON_1 guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine and imposed an administrative penalty in the form of a fine of UAH 850.
**Case No. 910/18154/23 dated 04/09/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from SE “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of LLC “VolynElectroZbut” of debt under the contract for ensuring the availability of electricity for household consumers.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the claim of LLC “VolynElectroZbut.” The court proceeded from the fact that SE “Guaranteed Buyer” improperly fulfilled its obligations under the contract, in particular, regarding timely payment.
rendered services. The arguments of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” regarding the existence of a suspensive condition that releases it from the obligation to pay were rejected, as similar arguments had already been the subject of consideration by the Supreme Court in another case, where a conclusion was formed about their unfoundedness. The court also noted that the counterclaim submitted by SE “Guaranteed Buyer” to the court of appeal was properly assessed by the court. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal regarding the partial satisfaction of the claims of LLC “VolynElectroZbut” for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing the amount of reimbursement to UAH 25,000, taking into account the scope of services provided and the complexity of the case.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to close the cassation proceedings on the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” against the постанову (ruling/resolution) of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the decision of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv, and to leave the cassation appeal against the additional ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unsatisfied.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126607633](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126607633) **Case №910/7116/24 dated 04/15/2025**
Good day! Here is my analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of a unilateral transaction as invalid, initiated by LLC “Bekvard Plus” against ME “Kyivtransparkservis”.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of ME “Kyivtransparkservis”, concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances due to the incompleteness of the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the incorrect application of the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation pointed out that the courts did not properly examine all the evidence, did not take into account important aspects that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, an assessment was not given to all the arguments of the parties. Also, the courts did not pay attention to possible violations of the procedure for committing a unilateral transaction, which could affect its validity. Given these shortcomings, the Supreme Court decided that, in order to ensure the legality and validity of the decision, a retrial of the case by the court of first instance is necessary.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126607594](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126607594) **Case №916/4589/23 dated 04/02/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the lease agreement of communal property (boiler house and other premises) and an additional agreement to it, as well as the return of this property to the Kodyma City Council.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to satisfy the prosecutor’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the prosecutor
The court incorrectly identified the parties to the case, namely: the Kodyma City Council, which is a party to the disputed lease agreement, was involved as the plaintiff, and not as the defendant. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the prosecutor, in addition to the claim for invalidation of the agreement, also demanded the return of property, which must be returned to the territorial community represented by the Kodyma City Council, therefore its involvement as a plaintiff is justified. The court of cassation also emphasized that the courts did not investigate all the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the object of lease falls under the Law of Ukraine “On peculiarities of transferring objects in the spheres of heat supply, water supply and water disposal, which are in communal ownership, into lease or concession”, which provides for a special procedure for transferring such objects into lease. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which clarifies the powers of the prosecutor to represent the interests of the state in court.
3. The court decided to cancel the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 875/334/22 dated 04/02/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the arbitration court and the refusal to issue an order for the compulsory execution of this decision, which concerned the obligation to supply goods and the recovery of penalties under the supply contract.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to cancel the decision of the arbitration court and refuse to issue an order for its compulsory execution. The court proceeded from the fact that in another case considered by the commercial court, the fact of non-conclusion of the supply contract, on which the arbitration clause was based, was established. Since the supply contract was declared not concluded, the arbitration agreement contained therein cannot be considered valid either. According to the law, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement is a mandatory condition for resolving a dispute in an arbitration court, and its absence indicates that the case is not subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court. The court also noted that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force are binding on all other courts that hear cases involving the same persons. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments that the appellate court had to independently assess the terms of the contract, since the fact of non-conclusion of the contract had already been established by another court.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the appeal of Kernel-Trade LLC.
Case No. 902/1014/23 dated 04/02/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis
Subject of the dispute – recognition of monetary claims of creditors to an individual within the insolvency case, where creditors tried to include in the register of claims the amounts paid under preliminary real estate sale agreements, as well as under the legal assistance agreement.
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to recognize the creditors’ claims based on preliminary real estate sale agreements, since such agreements were not notarized, as required by law for real estate sale agreements, and therefore are void. The court noted that creditors in bankruptcy cases have a higher standard of proof, and the debtor’s acknowledgment of the fact of transferring funds does not relieve the creditor of the obligation to provide proper evidence to support their claims. Regarding the claims of the адвокатське об’єднання (attorney association), the court also agreed with the previous instances, which recognized these claims as justified, since they were confirmed by the acts of rendered services, signed by both parties without comments. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law, since they were reduced to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is not within the competence of the cassation court.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 904/1926/23 (904/2742/24) dated 04/11/2025
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on the cancellation of measures to secure the claim, namely the prohibition for the bank to take actions to recover collateral under agreements that the plaintiff (insurance company) is trying to invalidate.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, based on the fact that the application of measures to secure the claim is impractical. The appellate court justified this by the fact that the bank is a secured creditor in the bankruptcy case of the debtor (LLC “Borivage”), and the satisfaction of its claims must take place within this procedure. In addition, any actions regarding the recovery of the debtor’s property require the permission of the commercial court that is hearing the bankruptcy case. The appellate court also noted that the measures to secure the claim taken by the court of first instance are disproportionate to the claims, as they restrict the rights of the bank as a pledge holder, although the insurance company is not a party to the pledge agreements. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the insurance company did not prove how the failure to take security measures would complicate the execution of the court decision, taking into account the special procedure for the sale of collateral in the bankruptcy procedure.
3. The court
The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, i.e., refused to grant the insurance company’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 991/2148/25 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the High Anti-Corruption Court’s decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine against Open Joint-Stock Company “Belaruskali” for the application of a sanction in the form of recovery to the state revenue of assets belonging to the defendant or in respect of which it can perform actions identical to the right of disposal.
2. The court granted the claim, guided by the following arguments:
* OJSC “Belaruskali” is a foreign legal entity to which a sanction may be applied in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions.”
* The claim was filed during the period of martial law in Ukraine.
* A sanction in the form of asset blocking was applied to OJSC “Belaruskali” by a decision of the National Security and Defense Council, enacted by a Decree of the President of Ukraine.
* The court found that OJSC “Belaruskali” is engaged in activities that fall under the grounds for applying the sanction, namely: assisting the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine by supporting the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation, providing material and technical support to the occupying administrations, and financing measures aimed at undermining the national identity of Ukrainian children.
* The court found that the assets to be recovered belong to OJSC “Belaruskali” or in respect of which the defendant can perform actions identical to the right of disposal.
* The court concluded that the application of the sanction is a proportionate interference with the defendant’s property rights, considering the harm caused by its actions to the interests of society.
3. The court ruled to grant the claim and recover to the state revenue the assets of OJSC “Belaruskali” listed in the decision.
Case No. 820/5574/17 dated 04/11/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unlawful inaction of the Main Department of the State Fiscal Service in the Kharkiv region regarding the failure to take measures to ensure the full and timely conduct of a scheduled on-site documentary inspection of LLC “Ukrainian Interregional Financial Company.”
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to grant the claim, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of its rights by the controlling authority during the inspection. The court noted that current legislation does not establish a specific number of hours that officials of the controlling authority must be present at the enterprise during the inspection. In addition, the court took into account that the lawfulness of the order to extend the term o
… the audit had already been the subject of consideration in another case, where the courts recognized its lawfulness, and these circumstances are not subject to repeated proof. The court also referred to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the illegality of the actions of the controlling body during the audit may be the basis for challenging decisions made based on the results of such audit, but is not the subject of a separate lawsuit if these violations did not affect the correctness of the conclusions of the controlling body.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Ukrainian Interregional Financial Company” LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 923/38/22 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Condominium Association “Impulse” to invalidate the decision on state registration of ownership of non-residential premises, cancel the city council’s decision on the privatization of these premises, and cancel the order for their purchase.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the previous court decisions to dismiss the claim, but changed their reasoning. The court indicated that the claim to cancel the state registration of the city council’s ownership right is an ineffective way of protection, since at the time of the case’s consideration, the premises had already been sold to a third party. The court also noted that the claim to invalidate the decisions of the city council and the order of the department on privatization is ineffective, since these decisions had already been executed through the conclusion of a sales contract. The court emphasized that in this case, the lawsuit was filed against an improper defendant, since the disputed legal relations exist between the Condominium Association and the individual who purchased the premises, and not with local self-government bodies. Therefore, the issue of whether the premises belong to ancillary ones should be resolved in a dispute with the proper defendant.
3. The court of cassation partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, but left their operative parts unchanged, i.e., the claim was dismissed.
Case No. 924/700/24 (924/760/24) dated 04/02/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the “Golden Lark” Farm Enterprise to recognize as terminated and cancel the entries in the Register of Agrarian Receipts regarding two financial agrarian receipts issued in favor of “Soufflet Agro Ukraine” LLC.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the financial agrarian receipts contain all the mandatory requisites provided for by Article 6 of the Law of Ukraine “On Agrarian Receipts”, in particular, information about
cadastral numbers of land plots on which the future harvest is grown, their location, and title documents. The court noted that information on title documents is contained in the Register of Agrarian Receipts, which is an integral component of the validity of a financial agrarian receipt as a transaction. The court also took into account that the procedure for maintaining the Register of Agrarian Receipts is approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and for making an entry on the termination of an agrarian receipt, a court decision on its invalidation is required, in particular. Since the invalidity of a transaction is not directly established by law, and one of the parties disputes its validity, such a transaction may be recognized as invalid by the court, and a corresponding court decision is required to make an entry on the termination of the agrarian receipt in the Register.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal of the “Golden Lark” Farm without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 990/257/24 dated April 10, 2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by a judge of the Kyiv District Administrative Court against the inaction and decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding qualification assessment.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, based on the following:
* The HQCJU did not allow illegal inaction regarding the non-consideration of the judge’s applications for suspension of qualification assessment, since the decision to suspend is the right, not the obligation of the Commission, and no specific grounds for this were established.
* The six-month period for completing the qualification assessment, provided for by Law No. 3511-IX, is indicative, not preclusive, therefore non-compliance with it does not make the actions of the HQCJU illegal.
* Failure to complete the qualification assessment on time does not violate the judge’s right to legal certainty regarding career continuation.
* The HQCJU’s decision to amend the exam schedule does not create new obligations for the judge and does not violate his rights, as it is part of the qualification assessment procedure.
* The judge actually passed the stage of qualification assessment, which indicates the absence of obstacles in its passage.
3. The court decided to refuse satisfaction of the claim of PERSON_1 in full.
Case No. 816/1634/17 dated April 11, 2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax consultation regarding the procedure for forming a VAT tax credit by a payer who uses the cash method of accounting.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused PJSC “Poltavaoblenergo”
of Ukraine, які регулюють порядок обчислення податку на нерухоме майно, відмінне від земельної ділянки, для об`єктів нежитлової нерухомості, оскільки спірний об`єкт (господарські будівлі та споруди) використовується позивачем у підприємницькій діяльності для зберігання зерна. Суд зазначив, що для таких об`єктів передбачено пільгове оподаткування відповідно до підпункту 141.1.2 пункту 141.1 статті 141 Податкового кодексу України, який встановлює ставку податку у розмірі 0,5 відсотка мінімальної заробітної плати за 1 кв. метр. Суд також вказав на необхідність врахування площі об`єктів нерухомості, які підлягають оподаткуванню, та застосування правильної ставки податку, передбаченої для такого виду діяльності.
3. Верховний Суд скасував рішення судів першої та апеляційної інстанцій та направив справу на новий розгляд до суду першої інстанції.
Справа №806/2022/18 від 11/04/2025
Аналіз судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є визнання протиправним та скасування податкового повідомлення-рішення, яким збільшено суму грошового зобов`язання з податку на додану вартість.
2. Суть спору полягає у правомірності формування податкового кредиту на підставі податкових накладних, в яких зазначено код Української класифікації товарів зовнішньоекономічної діяльності (УКТ ЗЕД) неіснуючого товару. Суд встановив, що зазначення в податковій накладній коду УКТ ЗЕД, який не відповідає фактично поставленому товару або взагалі не існує, не є безумовною підставою для відмови у визнанні податкового кредиту, якщо інші обов`язкові реквізити податкової накладної заповнені правильно та дозволяють ідентифікувати здійснену операцію. Суд також зазначив, що платник податків не несе відповідальності за помилки, допущені його контрагентом при заповненні податкової накладної, якщо такі помилки не заважають ідентифікувати операцію та не доводять факт зловживань з боку платника податків.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу контролюючого органу без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №816/1585/17 від 11/04/2025
Зміст судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про відмову у реєстрації податкової накладної в Єдиному реєстрі податкових накладних (ЄРПН).
2. Суть спору полягає у тому, чи правомірно контролюючий орган відмовив у реєстрації податкової накладної з підстави відсутності у платника податку достатніх ресурсів (зокрема, трудових) для здійснення господарської операції, зазначеної у податковій накладній. Суд встановив, що відсутність трудових ресурсів у платника податку сама по собі не є безумовною підставою для відмови у реєстрації податкової накладної, якщо платник податку довів реальність господарської операції та наявність інших необхідних ресурсів (наприклад, виробничих потужностей, транспортних засобів, тощо). Суд також зазначив, що контролюючий орган повинен враховувати всі обставини справи та не може обмежуватися лише формальною перевіркою наявності трудових ресурсів.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу контролюючого органу без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №822/1263/18 від 11/04/2025
Опис судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про нарахування грошового зобов`язання з податку на прибуток підприємств.
2. Спір виник у зв`язку з віднесенням до складу витрат, що враховуються при обчисленні об`єкта оподаткування податком на прибуток, вартості товарно-матеріальних цінностей (ТМЦ), придбаних у контрагента, щодо якого у податкового органу наявна інформація про його ризиковість. Суд встановив, що сам факт наявності у податкового органу інформації про ризиковість контрагента не є безумовною підставою для виключення вартості ТМЦ з витрат платника податку, якщо платник податку довів факт придбання ТМЦ, їх використання у господарській діяльності та наявність первинних документів, що підтверджують здійснення операції. Суд зазначив, що податковий орган повинен довести, що операція з придбання ТМЦ була фіктивною або не мала реального характеру, а не обмежуватися лише посиланням на ризиковість контрагента.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу контролюючого органу без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №815/5757/17 від 11/04/2025
Зміст судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про нарахування пені за несвоєчасну сплату узгодженого грошового зобов`язання.
2. Спір виник у зв`язку з тим, що платник податків помилково сплатив суму грошового зобов`язання на неправильний бюджетний рахунок. Суд встановив, що помилкова сплата узгодженого грошового зобов`язання на неправильний бюджетний рахунок не є підставою для звільнення платника податків від відповідальності за несвоєчасну сплату податку, якщо кошти не надійшли до відповідного бюджету у встановлений строк. Суд зазначив, що платник податків зобов`язаний самостійно контролювати правильність заповнення платіжних документів та своєчасність сплати податків і зборів.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу платника податків без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №813/525/18 від 11/04/2025
Аналіз судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про відмову у бюджетному відшкодуванні податку на додану вартість (ПДВ).
2. Суть спору полягає у правомірності відмови у бюджетному відшкодуванні ПДВ з підстави не підтвердження реальності здійснення господарських операцій з постачальниками платника податку. Суд встановив, що відмова у бюджетному відшкодуванні ПДВ з підстави не підтвердження реальності здійснення господарських операцій з постачальниками платника податку є правомірною, якщо контролюючий орган довів, що такі операції були фіктивними або не мали реального характеру. Суд зазначив, що платник податку несе відповідальність за вибір контрагентів та повинен вживати заходів для перевірки їхньої благонадійності.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу платника податків без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №804/1754/17 від 11/04/2025
Огляд судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про нарахування штрафних санкцій за порушення строків сплати податку на доходи фізичних осіб (ПДФО).
2. Спір виник у зв`язку з тим, що платник податків несвоєчасно перерахував до бюджету суму ПДФО, утриманого з виплачених працівникам доходів. Суд встановив, що несвоєчасне перерахування до бюджету суми ПДФО, утриманого з виплачених працівникам доходів, є підставою для застосування штрафних санкцій, передбачених Податковим кодексом України. Суд зазначив, що платник податків зобов`язаний своєчасно та в повному обсязі перераховувати до бюджету суму ПДФО, утриманого з виплачених працівникам доходів.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу платника податків без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №810/4122/17 від 11/04/2025
Зміст судового рішення:
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про відмову у реєстрації платником податку на додану вартість (ПДВ).
2. Суть спору полягає у правомірності відмови у реєстрації платником ПДВ з підстави невідповідності платника податків критеріям, встановленим Податковим кодексом України. Суд встановив, що відмова у реєстрації платником ПДВ з підстави невідповідності платника податків критеріям, встановленим Податковим кодексом України, є правомірною, якщо контролюючий орган довів, що платник податків не відповідає таким критеріям. Суд зазначив, що платник податків зобов`язаний надати достовірну інформацію для реєстрації платником ПДВ та відповідати встановленим критеріям.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу платника податків без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
Справа №814/2715/17 від 11/04/2025
Звісно, я проаналізую для вас надане судове рішення.
1. Предметом спору є оскарження рішення контролюючого органу про нарахування податку на прибуток підприємств та податку на додану вартість (ПДВ).
2. Спір виник у зв`язку з проведенням контролюючим органом перевірки платника податків з питань дотримання вимог податкового законодавства при здійсненні операцій з експорту сільськогосподарської продукції. Суд встановив, що контролюючий орган правомірно донарахував платнику податків податок на прибуток підприємств та ПДВ у зв`язку з тим, що платник податків не підтвердив фактичне здійснення експортних операцій та не надав належних первинних документів, що підтверджують право на застосування нульової ставки ПДВ при експорті. Суд зазначив, що платник податків зобов`язаний підтвердити фактичне здійснення експортних операцій та надати належні первинні документи, що підтверджують право на застосування нульової ставки ПДВ при експорті.
3. Верховний Суд залишив касаційну скаргу платника податків без задоволення, а рішення судів попередніх інстанцій – без змін.
regarding the deadlines for local self-government bodies to make decisions on the establishment of local taxes and levies, as in 2016 there was a regulation that allowed such decisions to be made later than the established deadline. The court noted that the obligation to pay the tax arises regardless of the timing of the decision made by the local self-government body. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not examine the issue of the correctness of calculating the tax amount, in particular, whether the area of the real estate object was correctly determined and the tax rate was applied. Since the court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case, it cannot independently assess the legality of the disputed tax notice-decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to clarify all the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
Case No. 910/14846/23 dated 04/02/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Institute of Veterinary Medicine against the State Service of Ukraine on Food Safety and Consumer Protection regarding the demolition of unauthorized garages located on the land plot used by the Institute.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the Institute of Veterinary Medicine did not provide sufficient evidence that the disputed garages are located on its land plot. The court noted that the act of detecting illegal construction provided by the plaintiff did not contain specific coordinates of the location of the garages. Also, the court took into account that the garages were built in 1990, and the land plot was transferred for use to the Institute only in 2004. The appellate court refused to accept additional evidence (technical report on geodetic works), as it was compiled after the decision of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the appellate court rightly refused to consider evidence that did not exist at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 520/1791/19 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of tax notice-decisions by which the Company’s excise tax on fuel was increased.
2. The court, when considering the case, took into account that the tax authority tried to prove that the Company sold excisable goods – “antiknock agents”, based on the conclusion of an expert examination, which, however, did not contain a quantitative analysis of substances and could not unequivocally determine the main direction in
