[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126683013](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126683013)
**Case No. 622/1362/19 dated 12/02/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s request to cancel the order for the transfer of land for lease, to invalidate the lease agreement, and to return this land to the state.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, motivating it as follows:
* The prosecutor initially requested to invalidate the lease agreement, apply the consequences of invalidity and return the land, and then in the cassation appeal stated that the claim for the return of the land is a negatory action, to which the statute of limitations does not apply, and the agreement is void, which contradicts the previous position.
* The court considered such behavior of the prosecutor as dishonest, since he changes his position regarding the legal nature of the dispute already at the stage of cassation appeal.
* The court noted that the principle of “jura novit curia” (the court knows the law) is not unlimited and cannot violate the principle of adversarial proceedings.
* The court agreed with the previous instances that the prosecutor missed the statute of limitations, and the defendants rightfully exercised the right to apply the statute of limitations.
* The court refused to re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126682990](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126682990)
**Case No. 916/203/24 dated 04/16/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of participants of Sviata Kateryna-Odesa LLC and the cancellation of the registration entry.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance on the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting. The court of cassation emphasized that for the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting, the mere fact of violation of the procedure for convening the meeting, for example, failure to notify the participant of its holding, is not sufficient. It is important that the participant proves that this violation led to the violation of his rights and interests as a participant of the company. In this case, the plaintiff, although she was not notified of the meeting, could not substantiate how the decisions made at this meeting violated her rights as a participant, and not as a former director. The court noted that dismissal from the position of director does not in itself deprive the plaintiff of the right to participate in the management of the company. Also, the court of cassation noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to initiate a general meeting of the company with the inclusion of relevant issues on the agenda.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
[https:/**Case No. 910/9198/24 dated April 16, 2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the obligation of a limited liability company to provide a participant of the company with copies of documents related to the financial and economic activities of the enterprise.
The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the company is obliged to provide the participant with information about its activities, and failure to provide such information violates the corporate rights of the participant. The court emphasized that the request for information can be submitted by the participant either personally or through a lawyer, and in such a case, the provision by the lawyer of a warrant and a copy of the certificate of the right to practice law is sufficient confirmation of his authority. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the lawyer’s request is not a lawyer’s inquiry, since it is based not only on the Law “On Advocacy and адвокатська діяльність” but also on the provisions of the company’s charter and the Law “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies”. The court also noted that sending the request to the official address of the company is proper notification, even if the company did not receive the letter due to the expiration of the storage period. The court also satisfied the plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance, as the plaintiff proved the fact of providing such services and their cost.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Netmaster”, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged, obliging LLC “Netmaster” to pay PERSON_1 UAH 4,000 for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 991/3857/24 dated April 1, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of a separate ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) regarding significant violations of procedural law by a NABU detective and improper procedural supervision by a SAP prosecutor.
The court of cassation instance overturned the separate ruling of the HACC Appeals Chamber, indicating that the court’s authority to issue a separate ruling that draws the attention of authorized bodies to violations of the law should be used only in the presence of obvious and irrefutable violations that threaten law and order or may significantly violate rights and freedoms. The court disagreed with the conclusion of the HACC Appeals Chamber that the detective violated the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code by submitting “clarifications” to the motion for the seizure of property without the consent of the prosecutor, since the question of whether special confiscation was declared as the purpose of the seizure in the initial motion is disputed and depends on the assessment of the parties’ arguments. The court emphasized that the mere victory of one party in an adversarial process does not indicate a violation of the law by the other party, and the position of the prosecution regarding the need for approval
my opinion, all the detective’s arguments with the prosecutor are not a manifest violation that requires a separate ruling.
The court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and overturned the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court.
Case No. 947/10824/22 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute was the closure of criminal proceedings under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in the death of the victim) regarding PERSON_7 in connection with his death.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, found PERSON_7 guilty of violating traffic rules, which led to a fatal traffic accident, based on the testimony of the victims, witnesses, and expert opinions (technical, toxicological, medical, DNA). In particular, it was established that PERSON_7 was driving under the influence of alcohol, exceeded the speed limit, lost control, and drove into the oncoming lane, where the collision occurred. The courts rejected the defense’s arguments about PERSON_7’s innocence, noting that they were refuted by the totality of the evidence. The court of cassation agreed with the assessment of the evidence, but indicated that the ruling on the closure of the proceedings cannot contain a conclusion about guilt, as this is the prerogative of a guilty verdict.
3. The Supreme Court decided to leave the defender’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, but changed the decisions of the previous instance courts, excluding from them the conclusions about recognizing PERSON_7 guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, leaving in force the decision to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the death of the accused.
Case No. 910/7827/24 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 2,539,915.41.
2. Unfortunately, the provided extract from the resolution does not contain a motivational part, so I cannot provide information about the court’s arguments. The introductory and operative parts of the decision usually do not provide justification for the court’s position. A complete version of the court decision is required for analysis.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine,” and the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 320/22931/23 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) to apply a measure of influence in the form of a warning to LLC “Financial Company “Victoria”” (FC “Victoria”) due to detected violations of currency legislation.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, indicating that FC “Victoria” p
violated the requirements of currency legislation, namely: failed to ensure the availability of all necessary information for clients at the currency exchange point and failed to ensure continuous video recording of the cashier’s workplace. The court noted that the elimination of violations after their detection does not exempt the company from liability. Importantly, the court emphasized the priority of the norms of NBU Resolution No. 165, which regulates the specifics of currency supervision during martial law, and it is this resolution that stipulates the obligation of an employee of a structural unit to provide explanations and documents during an inspection. Also, the court emphasized that the company did not provide evidence of the impossibility of fulfilling the requirements for video recording for reasons beyond its control.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of “Victoria” Financial Company LLC unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the legality of the NBU’s application of a measure of influence in the form of a warning.
Case No. 916/3542/23 dated 03/12/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use and disposal of state property – Lake Sasyk and the land plot under it, which, according to the prosecutor’s office, were illegally used by “VMS-10” LLC.
2. The court of appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following arguments:
* Sufficient evidence was not provided that the object is precisely a “lake” or “reservoir” of local significance, since it is actually an estuary, part of which is included in the Danube Biosphere Reserve.
* The land plot under the estuary was not properly formed and defined.
* The prosecutor did not prove that the Odesa Regional State Administration is the proper body authorized by the state to protect its interests in the disputed legal relations, since the disposal of water bodies of national importance falls within the competence of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
* The court noted that the prosecutor’s appeal in the interests of an improper plaintiff is grounds for refusing to satisfy the claim.
* The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that the disposal of internal sea waters, which include estuaries, falls within the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
* The court also noted that there are no grounds to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in similar cases.
3. The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 914/61/24 dated 04/15/2025
Good day! Let’s consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case between two individual entrepreneurs regarding the termination of the contract, the obligation to perform actions, and compensation for damages.
The court of cassation instance, having reviewed
Having reviewed the case materials, [the] court concluded that the cassation proceedings should be closed in the part of the ground provided for in paragraph 1 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, which indicates the lack of proper substantiation of the complaint in this part. Regarding the other ground for the cassation appeal, provided for in paragraph 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court found no grounds for its satisfaction, which indicates the absence of significant violations of procedural law that would make it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case and the correct application of substantive law. In fact, the court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which, presumably, comprehensively and fully investigated the circumstances of the case and made a lawful and justified decision. The court of cassation instance paid attention to the arguments of the cassation appeal, but did not find them convincing for the cancellation of the appellate court’s ruling.
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate commercial court remained unchanged.
Case No. 927/319/24 dated 04/16/2025
Greetings! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of additional charges for the volume of natural gas to the consumer (Private Agricultural Enterprise “Avangard”) due to the overdue verification of the meter, even if there is no actual gas consumption during this period.
2. The court of cassation instance supported the decision of the appellate court, noting that although the overdue verification of the meter is a violation that gives the Gas Distribution System Operator the right to change the mode of calculating gas volumes, the recalculation should be carried out exclusively on the volume of gas transferred (received). Since it was established that gas was not transferred to the consumer at all during the disputed period, there was no volume for recalculation. The court also emphasized that changing the method of calculating consumed gas due to missing the meter verification deadline does not meet the requirements of the Gas Distribution System Code in the absence of actual gas consumption at all. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments about not taking into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, since the actual circumstances of the case (absence of gas consumption) differ from the circumstances considered in previous decisions.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the claim of Private Agricultural Enterprise “Avangard” remained unchanged.
Case No. 727/11975/22 dated 04/14/2025
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person accused of committing theft combined with unlawful entry into a dwelling, and illegal acquisition, storage of narcotic drugs without the purpose of selling.
2. The Supreme Court made a decision, guided by the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate the powers
court of cassation, the procedure of cassation proceedings and the consequences of consideration of the cassation appeal. The court probably agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, finding no grounds to overturn its ruling. It is possible that the appellate court properly verified the legality and validity of the first instance court’s judgment, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties. Also, it is possible that the prosecutor in his cassation appeal did not provide convincing arguments indicating that the appellate court had incorrectly applied the norms of substantive or procedural law. Given that the full text of the decision will be announced later, the detailed reasons for the decision are not yet known.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 462/10190/23 dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the measure of punishment under Part 2 of Article 286-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules or operation of transport by persons driving vehicles under the influence of alcohol, resulting in grievous bodily harm).
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, took into account that the convicted person sincerely repented, voluntarily compensated the victim for damages, actively assisted in solving the crime, has positive characteristics, and supports three minor children and a disabled mother. The court also took into account the conclusion of the probation authority on the possibility of correcting the convicted person without isolation from society and his contract for military service. An important circumstance was the statement of the victim, who asked not to impose a severe punishment. Considering all these circumstances in aggregate, the Supreme Court concluded that there are sufficient grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of a lighter sentence than provided by law).
The court partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, changed the judgment of the appellate court and mitigated the punishment, sentencing the convicted person to 200 hours of community service with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 5 years.
Case No. 484/1926/17 dated 04/10/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal of LLC “Partner-Agro” against the ruling of the court of first instance on the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, which returned the appeal of LLC “Partner-Agro”, since the company is not a party to the criminal proceedings and is not among the persons entitled to appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that only those persons whose rights are affected have the right to appeal.
whose rights and interests are directly affected by the court decision. Partner-Agro LLC failed to provide convincing arguments that the ruling on the closure of criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 directly affects their rights and interests, in particular, regarding the right to use land, since these issues are regulated by other branches of law. The reference of the representative of Partner-Agro LLC to the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine was not supported by indicating specific circumstances relevant to this criminal proceeding.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal of Partner-Agro LLC.
**Case No. 750/14407/23 dated 04/10/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will help you analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance regarding a person convicted of evading conscription for military service during mobilization, with release from serving the sentence on probation.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, pointing out that the appellate court took a formal approach to verifying the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unsubstantiated application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (release from serving a sentence on probation). The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court did not properly assess the documents available in the case file, including the conclusion of the military medical commission on the person’s fitness for military service, and did not take into account the importance of achieving the purpose of punishment in martial law, which includes preventing evasion of mobilization by other persons. The court also noted that the appellate court did not substantiate how the release from punishment on probation would contribute to the general prevention of crimes under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and would not demotivate other persons liable for military service. According to the cassation court, the appellate court had to provide convincing arguments that such release would not create an impression of impunity and would not reduce the level of military discipline.
3. The court decided to grant the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturn the appellate court’s ruling, and order a new hearing in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 910/14752/23 dated 04/16/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the allocation of legal professional assistance costs incurred by the defendant in connection with the consideration of the case on invalidation of the decision of the general meeting of the cooperative.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the application for the allocation of legal costs, was guided by the following arguments:
* A party has the right to reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, but their amount must be justified and commensurate with the complexity
of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent, and the significance of the case for the party.
* Evidence of incurred court costs must be submitted before the end of the court debates or within five days after the decision is rendered, provided a prior statement to that effect has been made.
* Failure to submit evidence of incurred costs in lower courts deprives the party of the right to their reimbursement.
* The burden of proving the disproportionality of costs rests on the party filing a motion to reduce the costs of legal assistance.
* The court may reduce the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance if they do not meet the criteria of proportionality, reasonableness, and reality of attorney’s fees.
* Participation of a representative in a court session via video conference is not a basis for reducing the fixed rate if such was stipulated in the legal assistance agreement.
3. The court partially granted the application for the distribution of court costs, recovering from the plaintiffs in favor of the defendant a portion of the costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation, and denied reimbursement of costs incurred in the courts of first and appellate instances.
**Case No. 910/7827/24 dated 04/17/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Engineering Systems Group” in favor of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” of penalties and fines for violating the terms of delivery of goods under the contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which reduced the amount of penalties, based on the following arguments:
* Reducing the amount of penalty is the right of the court, not an obligation, and is carried out at the discretion of the court based on a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of all the circumstances of the case.
* The court considers the degree of fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor, the financial condition of the parties, the interests of the parties that deserve attention, as well as the reasons for the improper fulfillment of the obligation.
* The appellate court rightfully took into account the economic situation and martial law in Ukraine, the exceptional nature of the reasons for the improper fulfillment of the obligation, the fixation of force majeure circumstances by the certificate of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as the degree of fulfillment by the defendant of its obligations under the contract.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances of the case, as this is the competence of the courts of first and appellate instances.
* The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the need to deviate from the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 233 of the Commercial Code of Ukraine and Article 551 of the Civil Code of Ukraine are unfounded, as the appellate court acted within the scope of its discretionary powers.
3. The court of cassation ruled to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” unsatisfied.
leaving the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
[**Case No. 646/4294/23 dated 04/10/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126649274)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the leniency of the punishment imposed on PERSON_8 for robbery under martial law (Part 4, Article 187 of the Criminal Code), considering the court’s application of Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code, which provide for the imposition of a sentence below the minimum limit and release from serving the sentence with probation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, indicating the following main arguments:
* The appellate court did not properly assess the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect application of Articles 69 and 75 of the Criminal Code, limiting itself to citing the conclusions of the court of first instance, which were being appealed.
* The court did not specify how the mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse, apology, state of health) significantly reduce the degree of severity of the robbery, which is a mandatory condition for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code.
* The issue of active assistance in solving the crime was not investigated, as the convicted person tried to hide the stolen property, which casts doubt on the existence of this mitigating circumstance.
* The appellate court did not take into account the lack of a permanent place of residence of the convicted person, active and purposeful actions aimed at seizing property, as well as the use of violence against the victim.
* The court did not compare all available documents, in particular the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric examination, according to which PERSON_8 is sane and does not require the application of compulsory medical measures.
* The issue of releasing a person from punishment due to illness should be resolved in the order of execution of the sentence, and not at the stage of appellate proceedings.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new hearing in the appellate instance.
[**Case No. 905/573/24 dated 04/15/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126682922)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer within the framework of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court refused to satisfy the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, since the courts of previous instances reasonably established that the appellant missed the deadline for appealing the actions of the private enforcement officer and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. The court noted that the arguments about being abroad were not confirmed by relevant evidence at the time of the enforcement actions, and also that the appellant could have learned about the enforcement proceedings through the Unified State Register of Enforcement Proceedings or the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System. In addition, the court took into account that the appellant signed an application for agreeing on the price of the sale of property in the enforcement proceedings.
that demonstrates his awareness of the existence of these proceedings. The court also emphasized that the correction of the executor’s orders does not change the moment from which the time limit for appeal begins to run, and that the appellant did not prove that the incorrect indication of the court that issued the writ of execution made it difficult to appeal the executor’s actions. The court emphasized that the participants in legal proceedings must exercise their procedural rights in good faith and that creating artificial conditions for the exercise of these rights by one of the parties is inadmissible.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the court of appeal and the ruling of the court of first instance remained unchanged.
Case No. 916/530/23 dated 17/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 2,010,235.98.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of Porsche Leasing Ukraine LLC against the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation noted that the appellant based its cassation appeal on two grounds provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. Regarding the first ground, the Supreme Court decided to close the cassation proceedings, as it did not meet the requirements of the procedural law. Regarding the second ground, the court of cassation found it to be unfounded, as no violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law by the courts of previous instances were found that could lead to the cancellation of the appealed decisions. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case and gave proper assessment to the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Porsche Leasing Ukraine LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 320/10729/23 dated 16/04/2025
Good day! Let’s take a detailed look at this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the state registrar to terminate the political party “Opposition Platform – For Life” on the basis of a court decision to ban its activities.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the prohibition of the activities of a political party by the court, in accordance with current legislation, actually terminates its existence as a legal entity. The court emphasized that the court decision to ban the activities of a political party is binding. The state registrar, in making the decision to terminate the party’s activities on the basis of a court decision, acted within its powers and in the manner prescribed by law. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove how the appealed decision violates his rights and legitimate interests, since the consequences of the ban on the party’s activities, provided for by law,m, have already occurred. The judges also took into account that the Law of Ukraine “On Political Parties in Ukraine” does not require a separate decision to terminate a political party in connection with its prohibition, if there is already a corresponding court decision.
2. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
**Case No. 907/1016/23 dated 02/04/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the excavator purchase and sale agreement as invalid, the recognition of ownership of it, and its return.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of previous instances because it found that the courts did not take into account that at the time of the case, the excavator already belonged to a third party (PERSON_1) on the basis of a purchase and sale agreement concluded with LLC “Svoboda-Agro” before the start of the court proceedings. Since PERSON_1 was not involved in the case, and the court decision directly affected his ownership right, this is a violation of his procedural rights. The court of cassation instance emphasized that a court decision cannot violate the rights of persons who did not participate in the case. Also, the court of cassation instance drew attention to the possible violation by the court of specialization in the consideration of the case, which should be taken into account during the new consideration.
3. The court overturned the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Case No. 991/3857/24 dated 01/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s consider the decision of the Supreme Court.
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, which revealed significant violations of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) by the detective and improper procedural management by the prosecutor.
2. Unfortunately, the reasoning of the court is not given in the operative part of the decision. The full text of the resolution will be announced later, and then it will be possible to understand why the Supreme Court did not agree with the conclusions of the Appeals Chamber of the HACC. Currently, we can only assume that the court of cassation instance could have concluded that there were no significant violations of the CPC by the detective, or recognized that the procedural management by the prosecutor was proper. Perhaps, the Appeals Chamber of the HACC incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law, or did not take into account important circumstances of the case. More specifically, it will be possible to say after familiarizing oneself with the full text of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and overturned the ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court.
**Case No. 148/234/23 dated 16/04/2025**
Good day! Let’s consider the decision of the Supreme Court in more detail.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the verdict and ruling of the courts of previous instances regarding
regarding a person accused of violating traffic safety rules, resulting in the consequences stipulated in Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts without modification, supporting their conclusions. This means that the court of cassation agreed with the assessment of evidence, the established circumstances of the case, and the classification of the accused’s actions, as provided by the district and appellate courts. The court of cassation found no grounds to overturn or amend the appealed court decisions, considering them lawful and well-founded. The primary task of the court of cassation is to verify the correct application of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts, and in this case, the Supreme Court did not find any violations that could lead to the reversal or modification of the verdict and ruling. The defense counsel attempted to challenge these decisions in the cassation appeal, but his arguments were not accepted by the court of cassation.
3. The Supreme Court resolved to uphold the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court without modification, and to dismiss the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/17549/19 dated 04/15/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the share purchase agreement of “PrivatBank” and the act of fulfillment of obligations under this agreement, according to which the state acquired ownership of the bank’s shares in the process of its nationalization.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, justifying it by the fact that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of the agreement as invalid) is ineffective, as it will not lead to the restoration of his rights as a former shareholder, considering the special procedure for withdrawing an insolvent bank from the market (“bail-in”). The court noted that the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” limits the methods of protection of former shareholders to protect the interests of the state as an investor and ensure the stability of the financial system. The court emphasized that the only effective method of protection in this case may be compensation for damages in monetary form, and not the return of shares. Also, the court indicated that the amendments made to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine by Law No. 590-IX, which limit the methods of protection of former participants of the bank, did not change the substantive legal regulation and are subject to application, since at the time of consideration of the case in court, the relevant procedural norm on the closure of proceedings in case of choosing an improper method of protection was in effect. The court took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of special norms in cases of withdrawing insolvent banks from the market.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv and the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal without modification, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 903/786/24 dated April 15, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Municipal Enterprise “Kovelvodokanal” in favor of the Private Joint Stock Company “Volynoblenergo” of debt under the agreement on the provision of electricity distribution services, as well as penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claims of “Volynoblenergo.” The court of cassation emphasized that “Kovelvodokanal” violated the terms of the agreement regarding the timely payment for electricity distribution services. The Supreme Court noted that the accrual of penalties, inflation losses, and 3% per annum is lawful, as the agreement provides for liability for violation of payment deadlines. The court also took into account the provisions of the law regarding the suspension of the statute of limitations for the duration of quarantine and martial law, which made it impossible to apply the statute of limitations to the plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s arguments about the expiration of the statute of limitations, as restrictive measures were in effect at the time of the accrual of penalties and other payments, which suspended the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Municipal Enterprise “Kovelvodokanal” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 917/759/23 dated April 16, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the amount of the authorized capital of LLC “Promplastpolymer” and the recognition of the invalidity of the minutes of the general meeting of the company’s participants.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting the position that PERSON_2 is the owner of 100% of the authorized capital of LLC “Promplastpolymer.” The court took into account that PERSON_1 voluntarily transferred his share to PERSON_2, as well as the fact that PERSON_2 inherited the share in the authorized capital after the death of her husband. The court noted that the company’s charter does not provide for the need to obtain the consent of other participants for the transfer of a share by inheritance. Also, the court took into account that PERSON_2 tried to register her rights, but this was prevented by the company’s decision on liquidation. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 334 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Article 10 of the Law on State Reregistration is the basis for the cancellation of decisions, since the legal relations in the case referred to by the complainant are not similar to the legal relations in this case.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 922/1196/19 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 debt for supplied thermal energy from an individual entrepreneur.
2. The court of cassation considered a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appeal. The appellate court considered that the defendant had been duly notified of the case consideration, as the ruling on the opening of proceedings had been sent to the address indicated in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Associations, and its return with the note “other reasons” did not indicate non-notification. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion. It noted that the consideration of the case in simplified proceedings does not relieve the court of the obligation to notify the defendant of procedural actions, and the case file does not contain evidence of proper notification of the defendant. Therefore, an exception provided for in the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine applies to the defendant regarding the possibility of restoring the term for appeal if they were not notified of the case consideration. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that the defendant had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the court of first instance within the procedural term after familiarizing themselves with the case file, but did not do so.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amended the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left its operative part unchanged.
Case No. 911/3602/21 dated 04/16/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a bank guarantee as unenforceable due to the alleged improper performance by the contractor of their obligations under the works procurement agreement.
2. The court of cassation, in overturning the decision of the appellate court, drew attention to the fact that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of the guarantee as unenforceable) is appropriate only if there is ongoing legal uncertainty regarding the recovery of amounts secured by the guarantee, and the creditor has not initiated relevant disputes. The court emphasized that the appellate court should have clarified whether there is ongoing legal uncertainty regarding the recovery of amounts secured by the guarantee, whether relevant disputes have been initiated, and, depending on this, determine whether the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is appropriate. The court also noted that the grounds for paying a sum of money under the guarantee are not any violations of the terms of the contract, but rather the existence of unfulfilled obligations.
which a guarantee is provided, directly stipulated by the terms of the agreement. Since the appellate court did not clarify these circumstances, it prematurely dismissed the claim on the grounds of unsubstantiated claims on the merits. The court took into account the conclusions set forth in the постанові of the Supreme Court dated January 28, 2025, in case No. 910/16479/23, the full text of which was published after the filing of the cassation appeal in case No. 911/3602/21.
3. The court decided to overturn the постанову of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/2992/24 dated 04/16/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer” in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Solar M”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which partially satisfied the application of LLC “Solar M” for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance. The court noted that expenses for legal assistance must be real, justified and reasonable, and their amount must be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court also took into account that obligations that have arisen between the lawyer and the client are not binding on the court, and the court must assess the expenses to be compensated, taking into account their necessity. The court of cassation emphasized that the resolution of the issue of the distribution of expenses for the payment of a lawyer’s services is the discretion of the court, which considers the relevant issue taking into account the specific circumstances of the case in their entirety. The court rejected the arguments of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” about the inflated costs, since the courts of previous instances have already partially refused LLC “Solar M” to reimburse expenses, taking into account the criteria of reality, validity, necessity and reasonableness.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE “Guaranteed Buyer”, and left the постанову of the appellate court and the additional decision of the local commercial court unchanged.
Case No. 910/5739/23 dated 04/08/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of land plots of communal ownership on which the defendant’s facilities are located.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following:
* The defendant acquired ownership of the integral property complex (ІПК) back in 1995 in the process of privatization, and this complex includes non-residential buildings and other property necessary for the provision of parking services for small vessels.
* According to the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the real estate located on it, the defendant has the right to co
using the land plot necessary for the maintenance of this complex.
* The court took into account that the defendant had repeatedly applied to the Kyiv City Council with a request to formalize the right to use the land plot, but was unable to do so for reasons beyond his control.
* The use of the land plot without оформлених documents is not a sufficient basis for recognizing this use as unauthorized, especially considering that the defendant took measures to оформлення rights to the land.
* The prosecutor’s claims were not clearly justified regarding which specific actions of the defendant create obstacles in the use of the land, and whether the defendant owns all the objects located on this plot.
* The court also took into account the decision of the Economic Court of the city of Kyiv dated July 14, 2011, in case No. 36/81-3/177, which established that the defendant’s ownership of the real estate arose on legal grounds, and non-compliance with the procedure for оформлення the right to the land plot cannot be the basis for restricting the right of the real estate owner to use this plot.
4. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the claim to eliminate obstacles in the use of land plots.
**Case No. 910/7116/24 dated April 15, 2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the unilateral transaction of the Municipal Enterprise “Kyivtransparkservice” on the early termination of the contract with “Bekvard Plus” LLC regarding the provision of a parking space.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, indicating the following main points:
* The courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the legal nature of the contract, which is a contract for the lease of communal property (parking lot), and did not take into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property,” which has priority in regulating such relations.
* The courts did not verify whether the contract complies with the requirements for notarial certification if its term exceeds five years, as required by law.
* The courts did not properly assess the protocol of согласования разногласий, which changed the terms of the contract, in particular, regarding its term, and did not verify whether the contract is void due to non-compliance with the requirements of the law.
* The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should have independently qualified the legal relations of the parties and applied the appropriate rules of law, regardless of the references of the parties.
* The court noted that the courts should take into account the nullity of the transaction even in the absence of the parties’ claims, since a void transaction is invalid from the moment of its commission and does not create legal consequences.
3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts
of the first and appellate instances and to send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case and the application of the appropriate legal norms.
Case No. 910/3012/24 dated 15/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Agricultural Agrarian Company “PivdeninvestLand” and LLC “SINA” of joint and several debt under a loan agreement in favor of JSC “State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that LLC “PivdeninvestLand” improperly fulfilled its obligations under the loan agreement, and LLC “SINA” is a guarantor under this agreement and bears joint and several liability. The court rejected the arguments of LLC “SINA” that the guarantee agreement was concluded by the director in excess of authority, since at the time of the case, the guarantee agreement had not been declared invalid in court, and therefore, the presumption of its legality applies. The court also indicated that LLC “SINA” did not exercise its right to file a counterclaim to invalidate the guarantee agreement within the established procedural time limit. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to paragraph 18 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, since the subject of the claim was not a penalty, fine, or other payments from which the borrower is released during the period of martial law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “SINA” and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 921/574/21 dated 16/04/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute was the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of the cooperative to exclude the plaintiff from membership and the cancellation of the corresponding registration action.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of a person who was not involved in the case in the court of first instance, against the ruling of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court should have clarified whether the appealed decision directly concerns the rights, interests and/or obligations of the appellant. The court of cassation emphasized that the right to a share (stake) acquired during marriage is the joint joint property of the spouses, unless proven otherwise. The court of cassation indicated that the consent of one of the spouses to the alienation of joint property is presumed, but the contract may be declared invalid if a third party acted in bad faith. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the appealed decision does not violate the corporate or property rights of the appellant, since the subject of the dispute was not the agreements on the basis of which the stake was alienated. The court of cassation noted that the appellate
that the court mistakenly took into account an outdated legal position of the Supreme Court, but this did not lead to an incorrect decision on the merits.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left it unchanged in other respects.
[**Case No. 910/13689/22 dated 04/17/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126682999)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of a private enforcement officer for permission to foreclose on the debtor’s residential real estate, where minor children are registered, within the consolidated enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the return of the private enforcement officer’s application, noting that the enforcement officer has the right to apply to the court with an application for foreclosure on the debtor’s real estate, where children are registered, if the guardianship authority does not consent to the sale of this property. The court indicated that such an application should be considered in accordance with Article 331 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the actions of the private enforcement officer are not an abuse of procedural rights, but are aimed at enforcing a court decision and removing obstacles to its enforcement. The court also emphasized that when deciding on the foreclosure on property where children live, the court must assess the good faith of the debtor’s actions and take into account the interests of the children, in particular, whether this housing is their only place of residence, and whether they have other housing. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the appellant regarding abuse of procedural rights, since the previous court decisions did not contain conclusions about abuse, but only stated the inconsistency of the stated requirements with Article 331 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
[**Case No. 910/9652/23 dated 04/17/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126683106)
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of UAH 2,340,000.
2. The Supreme Court, granting the cassation appeal of Sole Proprietor Baranova A.O., overturned the decisions of the previous instances and refused to satisfy the claim of “HALS-K LTD” LLC. The court of cassation, apparently, did not agree with the conclusions of the local and appellate commercial courts, which sided with the plaintiff. Presumably, Sole Proprietor Baranova A.O. was able to convincingly prove the absence of grounds for recovery of the specified amount from her, referring to the incorrect application of the norms of substantive or procedural law by the courts of previous instances, or to the incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case. Also, the Supreme Court ordered to recover from “HALS-K LTD” LLC in favor of Sole Proprietor Baranova A.O. the costs of paying the court fee for the consideration of the appeal and cassation appeals.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances.
instances and fully rejected the claim of HALS-K LTD.
Case No. 910/5357/23 dated 04/16/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is a complaint by PrJSC “Kinto” against the actions of the state executor regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt from PJSC “Ukrnafta”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, agreeing that the state executor lawfully suspended the enforcement proceedings. The court noted that, according to current legislation, during the period of martial law, enforcement actions are suspended against enterprises of the defense-industrial complex, which includes PJSC “Ukrnafta”. The court emphasized that PJSC “Ukrnafta” notified the state executor of its inclusion in the relevant list, which is the basis for suspending enforcement actions. Also, the court took into account that there is no evidence of intentional evasion by PJSC “Ukrnafta” from fulfilling the court decision, and therefore there are no grounds for taking additional security measures. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the previous instances.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “Kinto” and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 911/918/24 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 recovery of a fine from Kyivrianta LLC for the untimely provision of certificates of net income from leased property and the obligation to provide these certificates to the State Enterprise “Boryspil International Airport”.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the following:
* The State Enterprise “Boryspil International Airport” filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the terms for calculating penalties and the grounds for reducing them.
* The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the cases cited by the airport are not similar to the present one, since the factual circumstances and legal regulation in them differ. In particular, the impact of quarantine restrictions on the terms for calculating fines was not taken into account in previous cases.
* Kyivrianta LLC also filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the recovery of a fine for a period of more than six months is illegal.
* The Supreme Court also rejected this appeal, noting that the previous instances correctly applied the norms of the Commercial Code of Ukraine in conjunction with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Aimed at Ensuring Additional Social and Economic Guarantees in Connection with the Spread of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)”, which extended the terms for calculation
penalties for the quarantine period.
* The court also noted that there is no conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the impossibility of applying the Law of Ukraine No. 540-IX to the agreement on reimbursement of expenses concluded before its entry into force.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 922/1913/24 dated April 15, 2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of Axioma LLC to provide the company participant, Person_1, with copies of documents relating to the company’s activities.
2. The court of appeal partially satisfied the claim, obliging Axioma LLC to provide Person_1 (through her attorney) with certain documents that do not contain restricted access information, reasoning that a company participant has the right to receive information about the company’s activities, and the refusal to provide such information violates his corporate rights. The court of cassation agreed with this decision, noting that an attorney acting in the interests of a company participant has the right to request information that is not confidential, and that the refusal to provide such information violates the participant’s rights. The court also emphasized that the company did not provide evidence that the requested information has restricted access. The court of cassation rejected Axioma LLC’s arguments that the request should be submitted personally by the participant, and not by his attorney, indicating that the current legislation does not prohibit a participant from authorizing an attorney to represent his interests. The court of cassation also noted that the company did not prove the need to form a separate conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of the true participant of the company in the event of a nominal owner of the share, since the courts of previous instances established that Person_1 is indeed a registered participant of the company.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of Axioma LLC.
Case No. 349/508/16-к dated April 7, 2025
Good day! Certainly, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict and decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a judge and an attorney for receiving and aiding and abetting in receiving an unlawful benefit.
2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, emphasizing that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law. In particular, the court of cassation noted that the fact of receiving an unlawful benefit was proven by appropriate and admissible evidence, including the results of covert investigative actions. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the provocation of the crime, since law enforcement agencies only recorded the crime that was already being prepared. Also, the court did not agree with the claims of violation of the right toskill, as the convicts had the opportunity to use the legal assistance of lawyers at all stages of the process. The court also noted that the appellate court rightfully took into account the evidence recognized as admissible, even in the absence of an appeal by the prosecutor regarding this.
3. The court decided to leave the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the defense counsel and the convicts unsatisfied.
: In this case, the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court deviated from the previous conclusion stated in the ruling of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of January 26, 2024, in case No. 466/9158/14-k, and formulated a conclusion that the court of cassation instance can independently verify procedural documents related to the existence of the authority of the investigator or prosecutor to perform certain procedural actions if such documents are provided by the prosecution during the cassation review of court decisions by which a person was brought to criminal responsibility for committing the incriminated criminal offense.
Case No. 917/610/24 dated 04/17/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery from LLC “Burat-Agro” in favor of JSC “Poltavaoblenergo” of the amount of UAH 5,167,894.18.
2. In this case, LLC “Burat-Agro” filed a cassation appeal, referring to paragraphs 2 and 4 of part two of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. This means that the appellant believed that the courts of previous instances incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law or violated the norms of procedural law, which led to an incorrect resolution of the case. However, the Supreme Court, having reviewed the case materials, found no grounds to satisfy the cassation appeal. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances, considering them reasonable and lawful. In fact, the Supreme Court confirmed that the previous court decisions were made in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Burat-Agro” and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/7435/24 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the obligation of the Chernivtsi Regional Military Administration to accept under its management four protective structures of civil defense, which were previously under the management of the State Property Fund of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that the dispute arose between two state bodies (the State Property Fund and the Chernivtsi Regional Military Administration), which is actually a dispute of the state.
with itself, since both bodies represent the state. The court noted that commercial courts consider disputes between different business entities, and not internal disputes between government bodies. Such a dispute is not jurisdictional, as it does not concern the delimitation of powers between these bodies. Resolving such a dispute in court does not meet the goal of effectively protecting the rights and interests of individuals and legal entities. The court indicated that such disputes should be resolved within administrative procedures, and not in court.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and closed the proceedings in the case, as the dispute is not subject to consideration in the order of commercial court proceedings.
Case No. 320/8487/24 dated 04/16/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against certain provisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Instruction regarding the circulation of weapons.
2. The court of cassation overturned the separate ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court went beyond the subject of the dispute. In a separate ruling, the appellate court pointed to procedural violations by the police during the inspection of the individual entrepreneur’s activities, although the subject of the dispute was the appeal against a regulatory legal act, and not the actions of the police. The court of cassation emphasized that a separate ruling should respond to obvious violations established during the consideration of a specific dispute, and cannot be used to resolve issues that are not the subject of the claim. Also, the court of cassation emphasized the importance of the powers of the National Police to control the circulation of weapons, especially under martial law, and the inadmissibility of restricting these powers by court decisions that go beyond the case under consideration. The court of cassation indicated that a person has the right to appeal the actions of the police, but within the framework of a separate claim, and not within the framework of appealing a regulatory legal act.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the separate ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 922/1834/24 dated 04/16/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as promised:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a contract for the procurement of works between MISHEM LLC and the Department of Construction and Road Management of the Kharkiv City Council.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized several important points. Firstly, the appellate court did not take into account that the reality of the business transaction is decisive, and the signing of acceptance certificates of completed works is a formality that does not change the essence of the completed works if their reality is proven by other evidence. Secondly, the appellate court did not establish whether the works were performed in accordance with the project documentation and cost estimate, and did not specify specific discrepancies.
