Case No. 420/10379/24 dated April 28, 2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Kherson Court of Appeal regarding the recalculation of the length of service of a retired judge and the failure to prepare an updated calculation of the length of service for the recalculation of lifetime monetary allowance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the retired judge, motivating this by the fact that the length of service in the position of judge has already been credited to the plaintiff in full, taking into account half of the term of study and two years of work as a lawyer, as established by previous court decisions. The court noted that, according to current legislation, the length of service in the position of a judge includes the length of service (experience) of work (professional activity), the requirement for which is determined by law and gives the right to be appointed to the position of a judge, but the amount of such length of service is determined based on the criteria that were in effect at the time of the initial appointment to the position of a judge. Since at the time of the plaintiff’s appointment as a judge, two years of work experience in a legal specialty were required, then this length of service is subject to additional crediting. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to apply to all judges the provisions of the second part of Article 137 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” as amended after the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, since this does not change the criteria for determining the amount of length of service that is subject to crediting. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, since it does not see grounds for deviating from the legal conclusion set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of May 30, 2019.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 620/12995/24 dated April 28, 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 termination of the payment of indexation of the plaintiff’s pension, which was carried out on the basis of Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 118 and No. 168, after the recalculation of his pension on the basis of a court decision.
2. The court of cassation, satisfying the cassation appeal of the Pension Fund, was guided by the fact that the recalculation of the plaintiff’s pension in execution of the court decision, taking into account the amounts of the official salary and the salary for a special rank, determined by multiplying the amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law as of January 1, 2023, is a recalculation of the pension with an increase. In accordance with Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 118 and No. 1
68, this constitutes a legitimate basis for terminating the payment of indexation for 2022 and 2023. The court also considered the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the model case No. 400/6254/24, which concerned similar legal relations. The court noted that the case under consideration meets the criteria outlined in the decision of the Supreme Court based on the review of the model case, and therefore the conclusions made in the model case are applicable.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new decision to dismiss the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 201/6750/16-ц dated 04/23/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure on the mortgaged apartment owned by the defendant to repay the debt under the loan agreement concluded between the bank and a third party.
2. The appellate court, in satisfying the bank’s claims, proceeded from the following:
* The mortgage remains valid even if the ownership of the mortgaged property has been transferred to another person (in this case, to the defendant).
* The existence of a court decision on the recovery of debt from the borrower does not terminate the mortgage and does not deprive the creditor of the right to foreclose on the mortgaged property.
* The court took into account the outstanding debt in enforcement proceedings based on a letter from a private enforcement officer.
* The defendant did not provide evidence of the execution of the default judgment on the recovery of debt.
* The apartment donation agreement to the son (defendant) was concluded during the period of the court decision declaring the mortgage invalid, but this decision was overturned, which indicates possible bad faith of the parties to the donation agreement.
* The court took into account that the mortgagor re-registered the mortgaged property to her son without the bank’s consent to prevent the execution of the court decision on debt recovery.
3. The court of cassation amended the decision of the appellate court, noting the suspension of the execution of the decision regarding the foreclosure on the mortgaged property for the duration of martial law in Ukraine and for 30 days after its completion.
Case No. 0814/13257/2012 dated 04/29/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the motion of PERSON_2 to suspend the execution of the judgment of the court of first instance pending the consideration of the cassation appeal.
2. The judge refused to grant the motion, citing that according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 1960, the judgment enters into legal force immediately after the announcement of the decision of the appellate instance and is binding throughout Ukraine.
The judge emphasized that the terms of execution of a court decision are a guarantee of legal certainty, which is an element of the rule of law. The very fact of requisitioning the case from the court of first instance is not a basis for suspending the execution of the court decision. The judge also referred to the fact that the person’s cassation appeal will be considered on the merits, but this is not a basis for suspending the execution of the court decision.
3. The court ruled: to leave the request of PERSON_2 to suspend the execution of the sentence without satisfaction, to request the criminal case from the court of first instance for review in cassation procedure.
Case No. 638/2757/19 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 request for an additional decision regarding the distribution of court costs for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation satisfied the application of the representative of PERSON_6 to recover from PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 the costs of professional legal assistance incurred in the appellate and cassation instances, motivating this as follows:
* The deadline for submitting evidence of incurring expenses was renewed, as the reasons for missing the deadline were recognized as valid.
* The declared expenses are confirmed by the case materials, in particular, the agreement on the provision of legal assistance, acts of completed works and a receipt for payment of services in the appellate instance.
* The absence of evidence of payment for services in the cassation instance is not an obstacle to reimbursement, since the obligation to pay these expenses arose, and the scope of services provided and their cost are confirmed.
* PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 did not file a petition to reduce the costs of legal assistance, therefore, there are no grounds for their reduction.
* The court took into account that the cassation appeal of PERSON_6 was satisfied, and therefore, his expenses are subject to reimbursement.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to renew the deadline for submitting evidence of incurring expenses for professional legal assistance and to recover from PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_6 the costs of professional legal assistance in the amount of UAH 10,000 each.
Case No. 260/3158/23 dated 04/28/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay the serviceman additional remuneration in the amount of up to UAH 100,000 for participation in hostilities.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the serviceman’s claim. The court noted that the main evidence of the serviceman’s participation in hostilities is a certificate issued by the commander of the military unit to which he was seconded. The court emphasized that sending s
The personnel lists in the established form are only an element of the procedure for payment of remuneration, and their absence cannot deprive a serviceman of the right to receive the remuneration due to him if his participation in hostilities is confirmed by other evidence. The court also noted that the state cannot refuse payments if there are legislative norms that provide for them, and the serviceman meets the established conditions. The court took into account previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the provisions of the order of the State Border Guard Service Administration, which determines the procedure for paying additional remuneration.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 947/32825/23 dated April 24, 2025
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the possibility of appealing the ruling of the investigating judge on the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal, which refused to open appellate proceedings, based on the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) clearly defines the list of rulings of the investigating judge that are subject to appeal during a pre-trial investigation, and the ruling on the cancellation of the seizure of property is not included in this list. The court noted that the seizure of property restricts the rights of the owner, and the cancellation of the seizure, on the contrary, restores these rights, therefore, the legislator did not provide for the possibility of appealing the ruling on the cancellation of the seizure. The court also referred to the practice of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which confirms that rulings on the cancellation of the seizure of property are not subject to appeal. Additionally, the court did not find confirmation of the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the investigating judge to consider the motion to cancel the seizure.
3. The court left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the prosecutor was dismissed.
Case No. 910/3867/19 dated April 18, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the court of appeal on the refusal to review the decision based on newly discovered circumstances in the case of eliminating obstacles to the exercise of property rights.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the court of appeal that the circumstances referred to by LLC “FC “Polis” (namely, the existence of a different purpose of LLC “Permus” when applying with a claim than the protection of its own violated rights) are a new justification for objections to the claim, and not newly discovered circumstances that existed at the time of the case.
were known. The court noted that the evidence provided by LLC “FC “Polis” indicates the behavior of LLC “Permus” after the appellate court’s decision, and not its intentions at the time of filing the lawsuit. The court emphasized that the review of court decisions based on newly discovered circumstances does not involve a new legal assessment of circumstances that were already the subject of investigation by the courts when resolving the dispute on its merits. The court also emphasized that the principle of adversarial proceedings implies placing the burden of proof on the parties, but does not oblige the court to consider a circumstance proven, which the party asserts, without proper evidence. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which allows the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances only in the presence of exceptional circumstances and the absence of abuse of rights.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Polis” and upheld the ruling of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 320/5034/24 dated 23/04/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
The subject of the dispute was the inaction of the Ethics Council regarding the non-publication of datasets in the form of open data on the official website and the Unified State Web Portal of Open Data.
The court noted that, according to current legislation, the obligation to publish information in the form of open data is imposed only on entities vested with power and certain other categories of legal entities. According to the analysis of its functions and powers, the Ethics Council does not perform governmental management functions, the decisions of which are mandatory, but is an auxiliary body that assists the bodies that elect (appoint) members of the High Council of Justice in establishing the compliance of a candidate for the position of a member of the High Council of Justice with the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. The court also took into account previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirm that the Ethics Council is not an entity vested with power, and its conclusions do not create independent legal consequences. In addition, the list of datasets to be published in the form of open data, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, does not include the Ethics Council among the list of entities obliged to publish such information. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the violation of her right to access public information, since the Ethics Council has no obligation to publish datasets in the form of open data.
The court decided to dismiss the claim of PERSON_1.
**Case No. 910/15170/23 dated 16/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance between LLC “TE
P Horizon and SE Santrade in a commercial case.
2. The court partially granted the applications of both parties for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the criteria of justification, proportionality, and reasonableness of such expenses. The court noted that the obligations between the lawyer and the client are not binding on the court in the context of resolving the issue of the distribution of court costs. The court assessed the evidence provided by the parties regarding the scope of services provided by the lawyers, took into account the existence of a previous legal position of the Supreme Court in a similar case between the same parties, as well as the fact that the position of the parties did not change during the consideration of the case in courts of all instances. The court also took into account the motions of both parties to reduce the amount of reimbursement of legal aid expenses to each other. As a result, the court recognized the expenses for legal assistance in the court of cassation instance in the amount of UAH 50,000 for each party as justified.
3. The court ruled to partially grant the applications of both parties and recover UAH 50,000 from SE Santrade in favor of LLC TEP Horizon, and also recover UAH 50,000 from LLC TEP Horizon in favor of SE Santrade to reimburse expenses for professional legal assistance.
Case No. 120/5175/23 dated April 28, 2025
**Case No. 420/22077/24 dated 04/28/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region to conduct indexation of the pension of PERSON_1 using the increase coefficients of the average salary for 2019-2021.
2. The court of cassation instance, considering the case, noted that according to the legislation of Ukraine, in particular the Law “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance”, pension indexation should be carried out by increasing the average salary indicator, which was taken into account when calculating the pension. The court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not have the right to establish a basic calculation value for indexation, as this contradicts the purpose of indexation – maintaining the purchasing power of citizens. Also, the court took into account the deadlines for applying to the court, established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and noted that the protection of the right to indexation may be limited by these deadlines. The court noted that the provisions of Procedure No. 124 are subject to application exclusively in the part that does not contradict the provisions of Law No. 1058-IV, and therefore, during such recalculation, the indicator of the average salary (income) in Ukraine, from which insurance contributions were paid, which was directly taken into account for calculating such a pension at the time of its appointment, should be used.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and partially satisfied the claim, obliging the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa Region to conduct indexation of the pension of PERSON_1 from January 12, 2024, using the appropriate coefficients, and left the claims for the previous period unconsidered due to missing the deadline for applying to the court.
**Case No. 904/142/22 dated 04/16/2025**
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the additional ruling of the appellate court, motivating this by the fact that the appellate court, having assessed the provided evidence, reasonably concluded that the application of the Department of Social Policy should be partially satisfied, since the Department did not provide a preliminary calculation of the costs of legal assistance together with the first statement on the merits of the dispute, as provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the decision on the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance is the discretion of the court, which considers this issue taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the submitted evidence. In addition, the court of cassation instance indicated that it cannot re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts.
that the grounds for cassation appeal cited by the appellant were not confirmed during the cassation proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that the principle of adversarial proceedings implies the obligation of each party to prove the circumstances they refer to, and that establishing these circumstances is the prerogative of the court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Department of Social Policy of the Nikopol City Council, and left the additional постанову (ruling) of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case №120/8747/23 dated 28/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: A serviceman challenged the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration for participation in combat operations.
Arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to additional remuneration arises on the basis of the actual participation of a serviceman in combat operations, which must be confirmed by relevant documents. The court noted that Order No. 164-АГ provides for several types of documents that can confirm participation in combat operations, and the presence of one of them is a sufficient condition for the payment of remuneration. Importantly, the court took into account the certificate of participation in combat operations issued by the military unit where the plaintiff performed tasks, as well as other documents confirming his presence in the combat zone. The court emphasized that formal shortcomings in the documents should not deprive a serviceman of the right to remuneration if actual participation in combat operations is confirmed by other evidence. The court also drew attention to the fact that the military unit is responsible for the correct execution of documents, and the consequences of deficiencies in the execution cannot be shifted to the serviceman. The court emphasized that the state cannot refuse payments if there are legal norms that provide for such payments, and the person meets the conditions established by these norms.
Decision of the court: The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, granting the serviceman’s claim.
Case №9901/189/21 dated 22/04/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by GEO POST LLC against the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part that the company considers unlawful.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of GEO POST LLC, and left the decision of the court of first instance unchanged. The court apparently agreed with the arguments of the court of previous instance and the defendant (President of Ukraine), as well as third parties (National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine
