Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 20/04/2025

**Case No. 908/2338/21 dated April 16, 2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the eviction of an individual entrepreneur (IE) from a non-residential premises, the lease term of which has expired.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to review the decision on the eviction of the IE based on newly discovered circumstances. The court noted that the newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the case consideration, be unknown to the applicant, and be of significant importance to the case, and in this case, the IE did not prove the existence of these conditions. In particular, the IE referred to the creation of the Homeowners Association (HOA) and the transfer of the building to its management, but did not provide evidence of the transfer of the disputed premises to the ownership of the HOA. The court also emphasized that circumstances that are based on a revaluation of evidence or are established on the basis of evidence that was not submitted by the parties in a timely manner cannot be considered newly discovered. In addition, the court rejected the IE’s arguments that the court’s decision concerns the rights of the HOA, since the failure to involve a person in the case is a basis for appealing the decision, and not for its review based on newly discovered circumstances.

3. The court of cassation dismissed the IE’s cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

**Case No. 990/111/24 dated April 8, 2025**
Good day! From
I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is appealing the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) to refuse to recommend the plaintiff for the position of a judge of the local court.

2. The court, in refusing to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that the HQCJU acted within its discretionary powers, assessing the candidate for the position of a judge for compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics. The court noted that the HQCJU reasonably expressed doubts about the plaintiff’s compliance with these criteria, considering the discrepancies in the value of the declared property (apartment), unconvincing explanations regarding the sources of funds, and the discrepancy between the standard of living and the declared income. The court emphasized that it is the duty of a candidate for the position of a judge to have a clear, logical, and consistent position regarding the disclosure of information about their assets. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about discrimination and bias of the HQCJU members, as they were not supported by proper evidence. The court emphasized that it is not entitled to interfere in the discretionary powers of the HQCJU regarding the evaluation of candidates if the Commission’s decision is justified and does not contradict the requirements of the law.

3. The court decided to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine to declare the decision illegal and to cancel it.

**Case No. 676/4638/23 dated 04/15/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding a person convicted under Part 1 of Article 369 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine ( предложение, обещание или предоставление неправомерной выгоды служебному лицу – offer, promise or provision of unlawful benefit to an official).

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defense attorney and the convicted person, changing the decisions of the previous courts only regarding the sentence imposed. The court decided to mitigate the punishment for the convicted person, reducing it to a fine of UAH 25,500. The convicted person was released from places of restriction of liberty. In other respects, the verdict of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged. This means that the Supreme Court agreed with the qualification of the actions and the proof of guilt, but considered it possible to reduce the severity of the punishment. The reasons for this decision are unknown, as only the operative part is available.

3. The Supreme Court decided to mitigate the punishment for the convicted person, replacing the restriction of liberty with a fine of UAH 25,500 and releasing him from custody.

**Case No. 645/1056/21 dated 04/09/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict regarding a person convicted of violating traffic rules, which resulted in the death of the victim (Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of the defender of the convicted person, who argued that the imposed punishment did not correspond to the severity of the crime and…
of the convicted person, as well as the fact that the appellate court did not take into account gross violations of traffic rules by another driver, which led to the accident. The Supreme Court noted that it does not have the right to establish the circumstances of the case, but only checks the correct application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances. The court emphasized that the local court examined all the evidence, including witness testimonies, video recordings, and expert opinions, and established that the actions of the convicted person, who violated traffic rules, are causally related to the death of the victim. The court also took into account that the appellate court reasonably overturned the decision to release from serving the sentence with probation, as the convicted person committed a serious crime, did not repent, and did not compensate for the damages. At the same time, the Supreme Court took into account the degree of involvement of the other driver in the occurrence of the accident and mitigated the sentence of the convicted person to 3 years of imprisonment.

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, mitigating the main sentence of the convicted person to 3 years of imprisonment, but left the verdict unchanged in other parts.

Case No. 560/13777/23 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of indexation of monetary allowance to the serviceman for a certain period and the determination of the base month for calculating this indexation.

2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, noted that the indexation of monetary allowance is a state guarantee aimed at maintaining the purchasing power of the population in conditions of inflation and is mandatory for all state bodies. The court emphasized that since 2015, the indexation mechanism has changed, and the month of income increase for calculating indexation should be considered the month of the last increase in the tariff rate (salary) for the position held by the employee. In this case, since the official salaries of servicemen have not been increased from January 2008 to 2018, then January 2008 is the base month for calculating indexation. The court also emphasized that the powers of state bodies regarding the determination of the “month of increase in tariff rates (salaries)” are not discretionary, since there is only one legitimate course of conduct – carrying out indexation, starting from the month of the last increase in the tariff rate (salary). The court also took into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases.

3. The court of cassation instance partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the courts of previous instances and obliging the military unit to accrue and pay the serviceman indexation of monetary allowance for the specified period, applying January 2008 as the month of increase in the tariff rate (salary) for calculating the consumer price index.

Case No. 910/9477/24 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the disp
The dispute concerns the appeal of the ruling on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against Creative Staff Gulliver LLC (CSG LLC) at the initiative of Denza Construction LLC based on the existence of a dispute over the right.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which opened bankruptcy proceedings against Creative Staff Gulliver LLC, as it found no grounds to conclude that there was a dispute over the right that would prevent the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. The court noted that in order to refuse to open bankruptcy proceedings on the basis of a dispute over the right, the dispute must relate to the creditor’s claims that are the basis for opening the proceedings. The court emphasized that the existence of a corporate conflict between the founders/ultimate beneficial owners of the creditor and the debtor does not in itself indicate the existence of a dispute over the right regarding the stated monetary claims if these claims are based on a valid executed transaction. The court also noted that the debtor did not dispute the fact of the conclusion of the contract, the performance of work, and the existence of debt, which indicates the absence of a dispute over the right regarding these claims. The court of cassation also rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding procedural violations committed by the court of first instance in the acceptance of evidence, as this did not lead to an illegal decision.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Creative Staff Gulliver LLC and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and the ruling of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv.

Case No. 910/3451/24 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of the amount of UAH 548,194,329.33.

2. In this case, the Supreme Court acted as a court of cassation, reviewing the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The point is that PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” filed a cassation appeal against the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal, which were made in favor of SE “Guaranteed Buyer”. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the case file and the arguments of the parties, found no grounds to overturn the decisions of the previous instances. The judges were guided by the norms of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, the articles regulating the powers of the cassation court, the procedure for cassation proceedings and the consequences of considering a cassation appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the validity of the claims of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” against PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” and to uphold the decision of the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.

Case No. 910/20040/23 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze
Here is the translation of the provided legal text:

This is a court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the contract for the provision of space in the collector in order to bring it into compliance with the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Construction, Transport, and Electric Power Facilities for the Development of Telecommunications Networks.”

2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because it decided that the contract between LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud” and KP “Kyivzhytlospecexploatatsiya” for the provision of space in the collector is not a contract for access to infrastructure within the meaning of Law No. 1834-VIII. The court noted that the contract concerned only the provision of space for the placement of engineering networks, and not the provision of electronic communication services to consumers. Also, according to the court, the subject composition of the contract did not meet the requirements of Law No. 1834-VIII, since at the time of the conclusion of the contract, LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud” was not an operator of electronic communications. The court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances. The court also took into account the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for the final court decision.

3. The court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.

Case No. 916/1781/20 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of a Public Organization to a Limited Liability Company for compensation of damages in the amount of the value of an aircraft that was not returned under a leasing agreement.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the defendant failed to fulfill the obligation to return the aircraft, which is a violation of the terms of the leasing agreement. The responsibility for non-return of the property lies with the defendant, as he did not provide evidence that the aircraft was returned. The court also took into account the expert’s opinion on the market value of the aircraft at the time of filing the claim, and rejected the defendant’s arguments about not taking into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the circumstances in the cited cases are not similar to this case. The court emphasized that the defendant did not prove the absence of his fault in causing the damage, and the evidence provided by him does not refute the fact of non-return of the aircraft.

3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous courts – without changes, obliging the Limited Liability Company to compensate for the damages.

Case No. 910/14396/22 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition as invalid of the order of the President of the Cycling Federation of Ukraine on the approval of the composition of the Presidium and the decision of the Presidium on holding the Conference of the Federation.

2. The court of cassation, considering the case, noted that the courts of previous instances correctly established that at the time of the adoption of the disputed decisions, PERSON_1 did not have full
President of the Federation’s authority, as his powers were terminated by the decision of the Federation Conference. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff, as a member of the Federation and a person elected as the President of the Federation, has the right to challenge decisions that violate his right to manage the legal entity. At the same time, the court of cassation pointed out the error of the previous courts, which simultaneously invalidated and overturned the disputed decisions, although these claims are alternative in their legal essence. The court of cassation also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the courts did not take into account the decision of the Pechersk District Court, which overturned the decision to terminate the powers of PERSON_1, as this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court and does not give rise to any legal consequences. The court also disagreed with the appellant’s arguments about the plaintiff’s abuse of their rights and about filing a claim against an improper defendant.

2. The Supreme Court decided to partially grant the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous courts in the part of the claims for the cancellation of the order and the decision of the Presidium of the Federation, leaving in force the decision on declaring them invalid.

**Case No. 454/2083/13-к dated 04/10/2025**

Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open proceedings on an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the investigating judge’s ruling.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which refused to open proceedings on newly discovered circumstances. The court noted that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances is an extraordinary procedure that is applied in exceptional cases. For review, circumstances are necessary that objectively existed at the time of the decision, but were not known to the court and the applicant, and that are of significant importance to the case. The court also emphasized that the applicant did not provide circumstances that could affect the decision of the investigating judge, but only expressed disagreement with the reasons that were taken into account when making the decision to refuse the review. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the applicant is abusing procedural rights by trying to initiate a repeated review of the issue that has already been resolved by the investigating judge. In addition, the court of cassation noted that, according to the established practice of the Supreme Court, only those court decisions that complete the consideration of criminal proceedings on the merits in the court of the relevant instance are subject to review based on newly discovered circumstances.

3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and leave the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.

**Case No. 752/17911/23 dated 04/14/2025**

Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of
Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed in large amounts or by an organized group).

2. The Supreme Court reviewed the cassation appeal of the convicted person’s defense counsel, which raised the issue of the validity of the appellate court’s judgment. The court partially granted the cassation appeal, pointing out the need to exclude from the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision references to the previous convictions of PERSON_7 for acquisitive crimes. The panel of judges, agreeing with the arguments of the cassation appeal, decided that mentioning the previous convictions of the convicted person for similar crimes is inappropriate in the reasoning part of the judgment, as this may affect the objectivity of the assessment of evidence in this particular proceeding. The court emphasized that each case should be considered separately, and past convictions should not automatically indicate a person’s guilt in a new crime. Thus, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of presumption of innocence and objective consideration of the case, regardless of the person’s past.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, amending the judgment of the appellate court by excluding from it the mention of the convicted person’s previous convictions, but otherwise left the court decision unchanged.

Case No. 917/1719/23(917/1785/23) dated 04/10/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court to refuse to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of “VKK “Hadiachsyr” LLC against the decision of the court of first instance.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, motivating it by the fact that “VKK “Hadiachsyr” LLC missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance, and the reasons for the missed deadline were not considered valid. The court took into account that “VKK “Hadiachsyr” LLC was aware of the debtor’s bankruptcy case, as it had filed an application for recognition of creditor claims. Also, the court noted that the introduction of martial law and the mobilization of the director of “VKK “Hadiachsyr” LLC are not in themselves sufficient grounds for reinstating the deadline for appellate appeal, since the company is a legal entity and could have engaged a representative. The court emphasized that “VKK “Hadiachsyr” LLC did not provide evidence that its director is the sole employee. The court of cassation emphasized that ensuring the principle of res judicata is one of the most important principles of guaranteeing the realization of the human right to a fair trial by the state.

3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal of “Production and Commercial Company “Hadiachsyr” LLC without satisfaction, and the decision of the Eastern Appellate Commercial Court – without changes.

Case No. 902/1435/23 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” regarding the calculation of the cost of unaccounted electricity to “TITAN” LLC.
due to accounting violations recorded in the violation report.

2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim of TITAN LLC, reasoning that TITAN LLC failed to ensure the preservation and integrity of the commercial electricity metering device on its territory, as confirmed by the violation report and expert opinions. The court stated that TITAN LLC did not prove that representatives of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” violated the requirements of the law during the inspection and drafting of the violation report. Also, the Supreme Court noted that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances, and that the appellant’s references to other resolutions of the Supreme Court are unfounded, as the circumstances in those cases differ from the circumstances in this case. The court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, as the conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant referred to, relate to legal relations that are not similar.

3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of TITAN LLC and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 300/6287/23 dated 04/15/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** PBS LLC challenged the tax assessment notice, which increased the amount of its tax liability for VAT and applied penalties due to the allegedly unlawful formation of a tax credit for transactions with Granit-001 LLC.

2. **Main arguments of the court:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing to violations of procedural law that made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not examine the evidence collected in the case comprehensively, fully, and objectively, and in particular, did not properly assess the tax authority’s arguments regarding:

* criminal proceedings regarding the official of Granit-001 LLC and its impact on the reliability of primary documents;
* the lack of sufficient labor and material resources at Granit-001 LLC to perform the work;
* discrepancies in the nomenclature of goods during purchase and sale;
* circumstances related to waybills, in particular, regarding the identity of the customer of transportation services and the fact that some of the waybills were not provided during the audit;
* operations under contract No. 13/07/19X dated July 13, 2019, were not investigated.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts should have taken measures to eliminate doubts about the reality of business transactions, in particular, by questioning witnesses and requesting additional evidence. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to analyze primary documents and reflect this analysis in court decisions.

3. **Decision of the court:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court
first instance.

Case No. 915/1818/23 dated 04/10/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of the amount of prepayment for goods that were not delivered, as well as a penalty, three percent per annum, and inflation losses.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that a sales contract was concluded between the parties in a simplified manner, namely by issuing an invoice and paying it. The court noted that in this case, the delivery time of the goods is determined by the moment the buyer presents the demand. Since the buyer did not make a demand for the delivery of the goods, the seller did not have an obligation to deliver, and therefore, there were no grounds for returning the prepayment. Accordingly, the right to demand the return of the prepayment did not pass to the new creditor, since the original creditor did not have such a right. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances examined all available evidence and correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. The court of cassation indicated that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of previous instances.

3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 133/3072/21 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement, cancellation of the state registration of land lease rights, and their return.

2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court because the defendant, an individual, was not properly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing in the appellate instance, which is a violation of his right to a fair trial and adversarial process. The court emphasized that the court’s obligation is to properly notify the parties to the case, especially individuals, by sending a ruling by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. The fact that the ruling is posted in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions is not proper notification. Also, the court noted that a lawyer’s warrant to represent a person’s interests in a court of first instance and an appellate court of general jurisdiction does not confirm his authority to represent that person’s interests in the appellate commercial court. Given these violations of procedural law, the court of cassation decided that the case should be sent for a new trial to the appellate court.

3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.

Case No. 922/1913/24 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the obligation to perform certain actions, where the plaintiff
physical person PERSON_1 acts as the plaintiff, and Axioma LLC acts as the defendant.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Axioma LLC and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, thus supporting the decision of the appellate court. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine the court’s arguments from the provided text, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are available. A complete analysis requires the reasoning part, where the court presents the rationale for its decision, referring to legal norms and the circumstances of the case. Without the reasoning part, one can only state the fact that the cassation appeal was dismissed.

4. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of Axioma LLC and to leave the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.

Case No. 758/404/23 of 04/10/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal regarding the return of the appeal filed by ASTRA SYSTEM TRADE LLC against the ruling of the investigating judge on the seizure of property.

2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, justifying it by stating that the appellate court acted lawfully by returning the appeal. The court noted that ASTRA SYSTEM TRADE LLC missed the deadline for appealing the investigating judge’s ruling on the seizure of property and did not provide sufficient grounds for restoring this deadline. The Supreme Court emphasized that the criminal procedure law does not link the possibility of appealing a decision on the seizure of property to the date of the ruling on the refusal to cancel the seizure. Also, the court of cassation did not find confirmation of the appellant’s arguments that the previous composition of the appellate court had already made a decision to restore the deadline for appeal. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of complying with deadlines in criminal proceedings to ensure the proper administration of justice and adherence to the principle of legal certainty.

3. The court decided to uphold the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and to dismiss the cassation appeal of ASTRA SYSTEM TRADE LLC.

Case No. 712/6011/21 of 04/10/2025
Good day! Here is a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case:

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdicts of the local and appellate courts regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 307 (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues) and Part 3 of Article 313 (theft, appropriation, extortion of equipment intended for the manufacture of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, or seizure of it by fraud or abuse of office and other illegal actions with such equipment) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, overturning the judgments of the previous instances in the part concerning the conviction
I am a person convicted under Part 3 of Article 313 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and closing the criminal proceedings in this part due to the absence of a criminal offense in the act. The court excluded the decisions of the courts on the imposition of punishment on the basis of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of punishment for a combination of crimes) and reclassified the punishment, considering the person convicted only under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. On the basis of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of punishment for a combination of sentences), the unserved part of the punishment under the previous verdict was partially added. The rest of the judgments of the courts of previous instances were left unchanged.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict in the part of the conviction under Article 313 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, convicted under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposed a final sentence of imprisonment for a term of 7 years and 3 months with confiscation of property.

[**Case No. 484/1926/17 dated 04/10/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126610176)
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appellant’s appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of criminal proceedings against another accused due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court unreasonably returned the appeal of the accused, as it did not take into account that the ruling of the court of first instance, which released another accused from criminal liability, may concern the interests of the appellant. The court of first instance, when closing the proceedings against another person, in fact concluded that this person was guilty of committing actions that, according to the prosecution, were aimed at illegal seizure of land with the participation of the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized that everyone has the right to appeal a court decision that concerns their rights, freedoms or interests, regardless of whether they participated in the court proceedings. The appellate court did not verify whether the appealed ruling actually concerned the rights and interests of the appellant, which is a violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the appellate instance.

[**Case No. 643/12389/14-к dated 04/09/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126610165)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_7 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 1 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code (illegal purchase, storage of narcotic drugs for the purpose of sale).

2. The court of cassation, when considering the cassation appeal, noted the following:
* The court of first instance reasonably recognized the search protocol as admissible evidence, since the investigating judge’s ruling authorizing the search was based on the interrogation protocol of a witness, and not on the materials of covert investigative (search) actions (hereinafter – CISD), which were deemed inadmissible.
* The court’s reference to the video recording of the search
* The item of evidence, which was not examined in the court session, is not a material violation, since it did not affect the assessment of the search results, which are confirmed by other evidence.
* The examination of physical evidence in a video conference mode was not a violation, since the defense did not object to this, and the physical evidence was re-examined in the court session with the participation of the convicted person.
* Conducting court sessions without the participation of a defense lawyer is not a violation of the right to defense, since the convicted person did not insist on the participation of a defense lawyer, and the evidence examined in these sessions was not used as the basis for the accusatory verdict.
* The application of a preventive measure in the form of detention upon the pronouncement of the verdict meets the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the issue of bail was resolved by the court.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the convicted person’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the court decisions of the previous instances – without changes.

[**Case No. 910/20040/23 dated 04/15/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126648421)
Good day! Let’s consider the resolution of the Supreme Court in the case regarding the dispute between LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud” and CP “Kyivzhytlospecxpluatatsiya” on the recognition of an additional agreement to the contract as concluded.

The court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud”, leaving the decisions of previous instances in force. In fact, LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud” tried to legally recognize the additional agreement to the existing contract with CP “Kyivzhytlospecxpluatatsiya” as concluded. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, and the Supreme Court supported these decisions. In its resolution, the Supreme Court did not provide detailed reasons why it agreed with the decisions of previous instances, but, obviously, the arguments of LLC “Trust Ukrtelebud” were deemed insufficient to recognize the additional agreement as concluded in court. It is possible that an agreement was not reached between the parties on all material terms of the additional agreement, or there were other legal grounds for refusing to satisfy the claim.

The decision of the Economic Court of the city of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Economic Court of Appeal were left unchanged.

[**Case No. 520/28375/23 dated 04/15/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126633105)
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of accruing land lease payments to an individual, given their status as a labor veteran and the existence of benefits provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles of Social Protection of Labor Veterans and Other Elderly Citizens in Ukraine.”

2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the previous instance courts, argued that the Tax Code of Ukraine (TC of Ukraine) is a special law that regulates taxation issues, including land tax. The TC of Ukraine does not provide for benefits regarding the payment of land lease for labor veterans. The court emphasized that in the event of a conflict between the norms of the TC of Ukraine and other laws, thenorms of the Tax Code of Ukraine prevail, especially in matters of taxation. The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles of Social Protection of Veterans of Labor and Other Elderly Citizens in Ukraine” does not regulate taxation issues, but is aimed at social protection of veterans. The court emphasized that the absence of a benefit in the Tax Code of Ukraine means its absence, and courts cannot apply benefits not provided for in this code. The court pointed out that the courts of previous instances mistakenly gave preference to the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles of Social Protection of Veterans of Labor and Other Elderly Citizens in Ukraine” over the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine.

3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rendered a new decision to dismiss the claim of the individual.

Case No. 320/15365/23 dated 04/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax notice-decision by which Olam Ukraine LLC reduced the amount of budget reimbursement of VAT and applied penalties.

2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the primary documents provided by the plaintiff and did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the reality of business transactions. In particular, the courts did not investigate the actual business relations between Olam Ukraine LLC and its counterparties, limiting themselves to a formal analysis of documents and referring to violations committed by counterparties in the supply chain. Also, the courts did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the legality of applying penalties and procedural violations committed by the tax authority during the audit. The court of cassation instance emphasized that to resolve the dispute, it is important to examine the totality of circumstances and primary documents that may confirm or refute the reality of business transactions.

3. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 1-24-7-5/297-06-7817 dated 04/02/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of a ruling by the commercial court approving the register of creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case, in particular, regarding the claims of one of the creditors (Yug-Service-06 LLC).

2. The court of cassation instance found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not provide a proper legal assessment of all the grounds for reviewing the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, which were indicated by the applicant (Krayanlift LLC Firm). The courts did not take into account the existence of a substantive legal connection between
by the ruling on the approval of the register of creditors and the court decision, on the basis of which the debt was recovered from the debtor in favor of the creditor, whose claims are being challenged. The circumstances established by other court decisions, which could have influenced the assessment of the validity of the creditor’s monetary claims, were also not taken into account. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts had to assess all the evidence in aggregate, taking into account the newly discovered circumstances, and could not refuse to satisfy the application for review only on the basis of the existence of a previous court decision confirming the debtor’s monetary obligation. In addition, the courts did not take into account the legal position of the Supreme Court, set forth in the ruling of March 15, 2023 in case No. 904/10560/17, regarding the assessment of the validity of creditors’ claims in the event of newly discovered circumstances.

3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 925/367/20(925/143/24) dated April 10, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application to impose joint liability on the former head of Oster LLC for the obligations of the bankrupt due to untimely filing of an application for bankruptcy with the court.

2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of previous instances to refuse to satisfy the liquidator’s application, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court indicated that the liquidator did not determine the amount of joint liability and did not claim the recovery of a specific amount from the former head, which is a necessary condition for satisfying such an application. The court emphasized that the choice of an ineffective method of protection (in this case, the absence of a claim for the recovery of a specific amount) is an independent ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of other circumstances of the case. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection and to the conclusions of the judicial chamber for consideration of bankruptcy cases of the Commercial Cassation Court regarding the need for simultaneous establishment of a violation and imposition of joint liability with the determination of the amount of recovery.

3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse to satisfy the liquidator’s application, but changed the reasoning part, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the chosen method of protection.

Case No. 921/527/23 dated April 15, 2025
Good day! Let’s take a closer look at this case.

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of powers of attorney as invalid.

2. Judging by the operative part, the cassation court partially satisfied the complaint of Alpo LLC, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but leaving the appellate court’s decision itself in force. This means that the court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court on the merits of the dispute (i.e., regarding the invalidity of the powers of attorney).
but disagreed with the reasoning used by the appellate court to justify its decision. It is possible that the appellate court made errors in applying the law or did not take into account certain important circumstances that affected the justification of the decision, but not its essence. Therefore, the cassation court decided to correct these shortcomings by presenting its own arguments, but without changing the final outcome of the case.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision, but leaving the decision itself unchanged.

Case No. 914/444/19 dated 04/08/2025
Good day! Of course, I will help you understand this court decision.

1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to oblige the municipal enterprise to clear the illegally occupied land plot of solid household waste.

2. The court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim because the fact of unauthorized occupation of the land plot by the municipal enterprise was not proven. The court took into account that the municipal enterprise did not have access to the landfill for a certain period and organized the removal of waste to other landfills. Also, the court noted that the case file does not contain evidence regarding the exact area and configuration of the illegally occupied plot, which is important since land plots belonging to other owners are located around the landfill. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the defendant’s unauthorized occupation of the disputed land plot, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The court of cassation instance noted that the conclusions of the courts of previous instances are based on the established circumstances of the case and the provided evidence, which was properly assessed.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.

Case No. 755/8930/22 dated 04/10/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 due to the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation.

2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the criminal proceedings, since the prosecutor appealed the closure of the proceedings due to the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period, arguing that the terms were not violated because the suspect was hiding and the pre-trial investigation was suspended for the duration of martial law. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the investigating judge reasonably canceled the decisions to suspend the pre-trial investigation, since the suspect’s whereabouts were known at the time they were issued. The court noted that the indictment was sent to the court outside the terms of the pre-trial investigation established by Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the courts of previous instances properly investigated all the circumstances of the case and assessedprosecutor’s arguments. Additionally, the court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding violations committed by the investigating judge when canceling the resolutions on the suspension of the pre-trial investigation, as the court of first instance considered the prosecutor’s objections and provided responses to them.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, leaving the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 590/242/22 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.

1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in the death of the victim) and the request for the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving the sentence with probation).

2. The court, refusing to satisfy the defender’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that the conclusion of the court of first instance on the guilt of PERSON_6 is substantiated, and the qualification of his actions is correct. The court took into account the severity of the crime committed, which belongs to the category of serious crimes, data on the identity of the convicted person and the circumstances of the crime, in particular, the consequences in the form of the death of a person. The position of the victim, who insisted on actual imprisonment, was also taken into account. The court noted that compensation for damages to the injured party was not complete and cannot be commensurate with the loss of human life. In addition, the court indicated that the presence of mitigating circumstances was taken into account when assigning the minimum penalty provided for by the sanction of the article, but is not a sufficient basis for release from serving the sentence. The court of appeal properly verified the arguments of the appeal and reasonably refused to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

3. The court decided to dismiss the defender’s cassation appeal, and the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal remain unchanged.

Case No. 761/41888/17 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the release of a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the representative of the victim against the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the guilty verdict against PERSON_6 and released him from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations; the appellants insisted that the court of appeal incorrectly calculated the statute of limitations, without taking into account the facts of interruption and suspension of their course, and also did not resolve the issue of procedural costs. The court of cassation noted that release from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations is unconditional, and the court should not establish the guilt of the person, and the person’s consent to such release is not an admission of guilt. The court also indicated that the statute of limitations is susit applies only if the person evades investigation or trial in this particular criminal proceeding, and not in another. Regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations, the court emphasized that the person’s guilt must be established only by a guilty verdict of the court, which was not present at the time of the case’s consideration.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals, amending the appellate court’s decision only regarding the resolution of the issue of procedural costs, assigning them to the state, and leaving the decision unchanged in all other respects.

**Case No. 464/7111/14-к dated 04/07/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested.

1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Lviv Court of Appeal to reinstate the term for filing an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances.

2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, stating that the term for filing an application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances is three months from the moment the person became aware of these circumstances. This term applies regardless of whether the newly discovered circumstances relate to mitigating or aggravating guilt. The court noted that the appellate court reasonably refused to reinstate the term, as the convicted person did not provide convincing reasons for missing the term, and the circumstances he referred to had already been considered by the court. The court also clarified the relationship between different parts of Article 461 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, emphasizing that part 1 establishes the term for a person to apply, and parts 2-4 define the terms during which the court may review the decision. The court emphasized that the non-application of the provisions of part 1 of Article 461 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.

3. The court upheld the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal and dismissed the convicted person’s cassation appeal.

**Case No. 922/1521/18 (922/2149/24) dated 04/10/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property of PJSC “Karavai” from the illegal possession of LLC “Saltivskyi Bread Factory” within the framework of the bankruptcy case of PJSC “Karavai”.