**Case No. 922/154/22 dated 07/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for the recovery of non-residential premises from another’s illegal possession from the ultimate acquirer, as he believes that the privatization of these premises took place in violation of the law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the ultimate acquirer of the property is bona fide, since at the time of acquisition of the real estate there was no information in the State Register of Real Property Rights about encumbrances or rights of other persons to this property, and he did not know and could not have known about violations in the privatization procedure. The court noted that a bona fide acquirer cannot be held responsible for violations committed by other persons in the privatization process, and imposing an excessive burden on him would be unacceptable. The court also took into account that local self-government bodies took an active part in the privatization process, and the ultimate acquirer had the right to expect the legality of their actions. In addition, the court noted that the recovery of property from a bona fide acquirer would not comply with the principle of proportionality, as it would place an excessive individual burden on him, violating his right to peaceful enjoyment of property, guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the refusal to recover the property from the bona fide acquirer.
**Case No. 910/16217/23 dated 07/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of an individual entrepreneur to vacate non-residential premises of communal ownership, the lease term of which has expired.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the previous courts, noting that Individual Entrepreneur Maikovska V. P. used the premises after the expiration of the lease agreement without legal grounds, depriving the Obolonskyi District State Administration of the opportunity to effectively manage communal property. The court rejected the applicant’s arguments about improper notification of the case consideration in the appellate court, stating that she had been duly notified of the court hearings, and the non-return of postal items from her address is not a basis for considering the notification improper, since the obligation to receive correspondence lies with the addressee. In addition, the court took into account that Individual Entrepreneur Maikovska V. P. was aware of the auction for the extension of the lease, but did not submit an application for participation, thereby not exercising her preferential right. The court also took into account the decision in another case, where it had already been established that Individual Entrepreneur Maikovska V. P. was aware of her preferential right to extend the lease, but did not exercise it.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
**Case No. 300/1129/2**
**Case No. 280/4 від 13/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the State Inspection of Architecture and Urban Planning of Ukraine (DIAU) regarding the issuance of a permit for the execution of construction works by the Department for State Architectural and Construction Control of the Ivano-Frankivsk City Council to the Service Cooperative “ZhBK ‘Spilka Zabudivnykiv 9’”.
2. The Supreme Court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the grounds for the DIAU to conduct an unscheduled inspection of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control (Department of DACC), did not assess whether the DIAU order complied with the requirements for substantiating an unscheduled inspection during martial law, and did not assess the arguments of the Department of DACC regarding the absence of grounds in the referrals for inspection. The courts also did not assess whether the identified violations in the actions of the Department of DACC were sufficient to suspend the permit, and did not verify the validity of the DIAU’s conclusion regarding the Department of DACC’s violation of legal requirements when issuing the permit, in particular, they did not investigate the DIAU’s justification for violations in the submitted documents, such as the absence of a positive expert report at the time of issuing the permit, the discrepancy in the project documentation with the Urban Planning Conditions and Restrictions, and did not investigate the procedure for obtaining the expert report, its registration with the Department of DACC, and the actual consideration by officials on the date of issuing the permit for the execution of construction works. Furthermore, the court of appeal did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU), which obliges the court of appeal to verify the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance within the scope of the arguments of the appeal and to examine the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and remanded the case for a new hearing to the court of appeal.
Case No. 200/1370/21-а від 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of budgetary reimbursement of value-added tax and penalties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the statement of claim, as the plaintiff missed the six-month period for appealing to the court established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that the plaintiff should have learned about the violation of its rights in March 2017, when the tax authority did not enter the agreed amount of budgetary reimbursement into the Register of Applications, but only appealed to the court in February 2021. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the continuing nature of the offense and the application of the 1095-day period, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which defines a six-month period in such disputes. Also, the court did not recognize the reasons for missing the deadline related to quarantine as valid, since the plaintiff did not prove how exactly the quarantine restrictions prevented it from appealing to the court in a timely manner, and also did not take any actions to protect its right before the introduction of quarantine. The court also took into account the practice of the ECHR, according to which a change in case law after a decision is made
The application of the law should not violate the principle of legal certainty.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 560/11633/24 dated 05/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the refusal to pay a monthly supplement to the pension, provided for by Resolution No. 713 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to return the appeal to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, since the shortcomings of the appeal, namely the absence of a document on the payment of court fees, were not eliminated within the time limit set by the court. The court emphasized the obligation of the parties to the proceedings to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to fulfill their procedural obligations, in particular, to eliminate the shortcomings of the appeal in a timely manner. The Supreme Court noted that the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine had to take all possible actions for the proper fulfillment of procedural obligations, which was not done. Since the appellant did not comply with the court’s requirements in time, the appellate court rightfully returned the appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
**Case No. 910/268/23 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of the application of “Bilanivskyi Mining and Processing Plant” LLC for clarification of the resolution of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal regarding the obligation of the state enforcement officer to perform certain actions in the enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the application of “Bilanivskyi Mining and Processing Plant” LLC actually concerns not the clarification of ambiguities in the court decision, but the determination of the procedure for its execution, which goes beyond the limits of Article 245 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the clarification of a court decision aims to eliminate ambiguities, not to change its essence or establish a method of execution. The court also noted that the appellate court reasonably referred to the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court that an application for clarification cannot be used to change the decision or establish a new procedure for its execution. The arguments of the appellants that the court of appeal instance did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected, as they relate to general conclusions regarding the application of Article 245 of the Commercial Procedure Code, which the appealed ruling does not contradict. The court of cassation instance did not find any violations of the norms of procedural law that would lead to the adoption of an illegal decision by the court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
**Case No. 160/2015/21 dated 05/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the tax authority regarding the accrual of arrears on
of the unified social contribution and the obligation to amend the integrated taxpayer card.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which dismissed the claim due to the expiration of the term for appealing to the court. The court noted that the six-month period begins to run from the moment when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights. The court indicated that the plaintiff knew about the accrual of arrears back in 2016, but appealed to the court only in 2021, without providing convincing evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court did not recognize pre-trial dispute resolution as a valid reason, as it lasted too long and was not supported by the plaintiff’s active actions throughout the period. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the deadlines for appealing to the court to ensure legal certainty and stability of public law relations. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the importance of statutes of limitations to ensure legal certainty and protection against overdue claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 280/5768/24 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices, by which Smile Trade Group LLC had its VAT tax liabilities increased, the amount of VAT budget refund decreased, and the amount of negative VAT value reduced.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the tax assessment notices as unlawful, based on the fact that the repeated documentary unscheduled audit was ordered without sufficient grounds provided for in subparagraph 78.1.5 of Article 78 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, since the controlling authority did not prove the need for an audit to clarify the circumstances referred to by the taxpayer in its objections to the act of the previous audit, and also because the actual basis for ordering the audit was information received from the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine, which required the appointment of an audit on another basis provided for by the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the illegality of the actions of the controlling authority in ordering and conducting the audit may be the basis for recognizing the decisions taken as a result of such audit as unlawful, if these violations affected or could objectively affect the correctness of the conclusions of the controlling authority. In addition, the court noted that the controlling authorities are obliged to act exclusively on the basis, within the limits of authority and in the manner prescribed by the Tax Code of Ukraine, and not to allow violations of the rights and legally protected interests of taxpayers.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Zaporizhzhia region and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 904/246/24 of 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of LLC “Management Company “Lider-Comfort” to transfer documentation to the Condominium Association “Svobody 51.”
2. In this case, the courts of previous instances granted the claim of the Condominium Association, obliging LLC “Management Company “Lider-Comfort” to transfer the documentation, as the Condominium Association is the legal manager of the building, and the management company has no legal grounds to withhold the documentation necessary for managing the building. The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, indicating that the obligation to transfer documentation is provided for by law and the agreement between the parties, and that improper performance of this obligation violates the rights of the Condominium Association as the manager of the building. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments about the absence of necessary documentation, as this does not relieve it of the obligation to transfer it.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Lider-Comfort,” and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 320/46498/23 of 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Department of Pension Issues and Social Protection of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine to issue a certificate of the amount of monetary allowance for recalculation of pension as of 01/01/2023 to a person who served in the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation, granting the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, proceeded from the fact that the basis for recalculating pensions is a change in the amount of at least one type of monetary allowance or the introduction of new monthly additional types of monetary allowance. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has the right to establish the conditions and procedure for recalculating pensions, as well as the amounts of components of monetary allowance. The indication in paragraph 4 of CMU Resolution No. 704 of the subsistence minimum as a calculated value for determining official salaries does not contradict the powers delegated to the Government. Due to the increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, the plaintiff had the right to receive an updated certificate of the amount of monetary allowance in 2023 and recalculate the pension based on it. Appendix 1 to Resolution No. 704 defines the sizes of the tariff coefficient of official salaries of all military personnel, including those serving in the National Guard, which does not deprive them of the right to calculate the size of their official salaries by multiplying the subsistence minimum by the corresponding tariff coefficient.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which granted the claims.
Case No. 922/1977/24 of 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of an operational-economic sanction applied by the Joint-Stock Company “Kharkivoblenergy” to Physical Person-Entrepreneur Masalitina Vasyl Vasyliovych.
2. The decision lacks the court’s arguments, as only the introductory and operative parts of the resolution are provided. Typically, when overturning decisions of lower courts, the cassation court points to the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, incomplete clarification of the case’s circumstances, or other violations that affected the legality and validity of the court decisions. In this case, the matter was referred for a new trial to the court of first instance, which may indicate the need to examine additional evidence or clarify the actual circumstances of the case. The court of cassation instance could have concluded that the lower courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case that are relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute or incorrectly applied the legal norms governing relations regarding the application of operational and economic sanctions. Also, procedural violations that affected the objectivity of the case’s consideration may have been identified.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast.
Case No. 922/2665/24 dated 05/13/2025
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of the decision of the Eastern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, leaving their conclusions unchanged. The lower courts, and the Supreme Court agreed with them, proceeded from the fact that the AMCU Office acted within its powers and in accordance with current legislation when making the disputed decision. The courts also found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to support that the decision of the AMCU Office violated his rights and legitimate interests. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of adversarial proceedings and the obligation of each party to prove the circumstances on which it relies as the basis of its claims and objections. In addition, the courts took into account the specifics of antimonopoly legislation and the broad discretionary powers of the AMCU Office in the field of protecting economic competition.
The Supreme Court ruled: to dismiss the cassation appeal of “AZOV BUSINESS CONSULTING” LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast and the resolution of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 160/19743/24 dated 05/12/2025
The subject of the dispute is appealing the refusal of the Pension Fund to index the plaintiff’s pension, taking into account the coefficients of increase in the average salary, provided for by the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
The court of cassation instance found that the Procedure for conducting
The recalculation of pensions, approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 124, contradicts the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” regarding the determination of the indicator to be increased during indexation. The court emphasized that during the indexation of pensions granted in 2020-2023, the average wage indicator that was taken into account when granting the pension should be increased, and not the indicator as of October 1, 2017, as provided for by Procedure No. 124. The court emphasized that in case of contradiction between the norms of a by-law and the norms of the law, the norms of the law should be applied, since it has higher legal force. At the same time, the court took into account the deadlines for applying to the court established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and limited the period of payment of underpaid pension amounts to six months preceding the application to the court.
The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and ordered the Pension Fund to recalculate the plaintiff’s pension, taking into account the appropriate increase coefficients, but with the payment of underpaid amounts only for the last six months before applying to the court, and also recovered court costs in favor of the plaintiff.
Case No. 922/5322/23 dated April 16, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of JSC “Euroglass” against LLC “Malynivskyi Glass Factory” for compensation of losses incurred as a result of the supply of substandard glass products.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since JSC “Euroglass” did not prove with proper evidence the existence of all elements of a civil offense necessary for compensation of damages. In particular, JSC “Euroglass” did not provide proper evidence that the jars supplied by LLC “Malynivskyi Glass Factory” were defective at the time of their transfer, and also did not prove the causal link between the actions of LLC “Malynivskyi Glass Factory” and the losses incurred. The court also noted that the expert report provided by JSC “Euroglass” is not proper evidence, since it was prepared at the request of the insurance company, and not JSC “Euroglass”, and does not contain information about warning the experts about criminal liability for a knowingly false conclusion. In addition, JSC “Euroglass” did not provide evidence of the delivery of goods (jars) to JSC “Braty Khaitoglu”. The court also took into account that JSC “Euroglass” accepted the goods from LLC “Malynivskyi Glass Factory” without comments and did not make any claims within the established period.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Euroglass”, and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 668/10895/15-п dated April 30, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the appellate court on bringing a person to administrative responsibility for violation of customs regulations, namely, importing a car into the territory of Ukraine through a closed checkpoint in Crimea.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court refused to satisfy
regarding the application for review of the appellate court’s decision, taking into account the ECHR’s decision in the case of “Hanushchak v. Ukraine,” which established a violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to discrepancies in judicial practice regarding the application of Article 482 of the Customs Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the ECHR awarded compensation for pecuniary damage in the amount of the paid fine, which had already been paid to the applicant, and considered it sufficient satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The Grand Chamber emphasized that the ECHR did not question the person’s guilt in committing the administrative offense, but only stated a violation of the principle of legality due to the unpredictability of the court decision as a result of discrepancies in judicial practice. The court also took into account that the applicant was not the owner of the confiscated car, and therefore, the interference concerned only the paid fine, which had already been compensated. In addition, the Grand Chamber drew attention to the fact that at the time of the consideration of the case by the appellate court, legislation was in force that regulated the specifics of the movement of goods through the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.
3. The court rejected the application for review of the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 640/2671/18 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the reclassification of the actions of a university professor who received an unlawful benefit from a student for successful completion of exams, from Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (acceptance of a bribe by an official) to Part 3 of Article 354 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (receipt of unlawful benefit by a person who is not an official).
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, stating that for the actions to be qualified under Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the person must be an official. The court noted that a lecturer who assesses the current academic performance of a student does not perform organizational and administrative functions, and therefore, is not an official in this case. The court also took into account that, unlike the situation with the taking of exams by an examination board, where the results affect further education and qualification, the assessment of current academic performance is part of the teaching duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the reclassification of the convicted person’s actions from a more serious crime to a less serious one does not violate her rights, as it improves her situation. The court referred to Part 3 of Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows the court to go beyond the scope of the charges in terms of changing the legal classification, if this improves the person’s situation.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 607/8925/15-к dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a sentence and ruling regarding a person convicted of embezzlement of another’s property on a particularly large scale (Part 5 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation did not
agreed with the defender’s arguments regarding the absence of a crime in the convict’s actions, as it was established that he, being the director of the enterprise, used the funds of shareholders intended for the construction of one object for other purposes, which led to the failure to fulfill obligations to the shareholders. The court noted that the economic reasons for the unfinished construction do not negate the fact of embezzlement of funds. At the same time, the court found that at the time of the review of the case by the appellate court, the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability for a particularly serious crime (15 years) had expired, and the appellate court did not take this into account. Considering the position of the defense regarding the absence of a crime, the court of cassation applied Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and released the convicted person from the assigned punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defender’s cassation appeal, amended the court decisions, and released the person from the assigned punishment based on Part 5 of Article 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
**Case №916/758/24 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of “TETRAVION K” LLC against the Russian Federation for compensation of damages in the amount of USD 1,100,233.00 caused by military aggression.
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of damage in the claimed amount, considering that demining has not been carried out in the territory where the property is located, and it is impossible to establish the fact of loss or destruction of the property. The court noted that the illegality of the defendant’s actions is a well-known circumstance, but for the recovery of damages, the presence of all elements of the offense is necessary, including proof of the fact of damage. The court also took into account that the territory where the plaintiff’s property was stored is de-occupied, and there is no evidence of removal or illegal alienation of the property. The court emphasized that the damage assessment report can be evidence only after establishing the fact of loss, theft, or destruction of property as a result of aggression. The judges referred to Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which requires the substantiation of claims of rights violations.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and dismissed the cassation appeal of “TETRAVION K” LLC.
**Case №420/21467/23 dated 05/13/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the requirement of the Department of State Architectural and Construction Control of the Odesa City Council to terminate the right to perform construction works and cancel the registration of the declaration of readiness of the object for operation, given the identified unreliable data in the submitted documents.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that the right to perform construction works had already been exercised and terminated in connection with the completion ofof construction and commissioning of the object, and the declaration of readiness of the object for operation expired after the registration of ownership of the object. The court noted that after the registration of ownership of the construction object, in case of detection of signs of unauthorized construction, the state architectural and construction control body must take actions aimed at eliminating violations, up to filing a lawsuit for the demolition of the illegally constructed object. The Supreme Court pointed out that the method of judicial protection chosen by the Department is inappropriate, since the satisfaction of the claim for termination of the right to perform works and cancellation of the declaration will not lead to any legal consequences and will not ensure proper judicial protection. The court also took into account that the appellate court mistakenly applied the conclusions of the Supreme Court from another case, which were not relevant to the disputed legal relations.
3. The court granted the cassation appeals of the defendant and the third party, overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim.
Case No. 199/5692/18 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules, resulting in the death of the victim).
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, agreeing with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt. The court noted that the courts of first and appellate instances objectively clarified the circumstances of the case, properly investigated and evaluated the evidence, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, a protocol of the investigative experiment, and correctly qualified the actions of PERSON_7. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the defense counsel regarding the incompleteness of the judicial review and the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions with the actual circumstances of the case, since these circumstances were the subject of verification by the appellate court. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the appellate court properly assessed the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and reasonably agreed with the conclusions of the local court regarding the admissibility of evidence and the proof of PERSON_7’s guilt. The court of cassation did not find any significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law that would be grounds for overturning the court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 549/163/20 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code (intentional minor bodily injury that caused a short-term health disorder).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, since
the appellate court did not comply with the instructions contained in the previous ruling of the Supreme Court regarding the need for a thorough review of the arguments of the appeal complaints and the provision of reasoned responses to them. The court of appeal did not refute the arguments of the appeal complaints regarding the mechanism of causing bodily injuries, which is important for the legality and validity of the court decision, taking into account the conflicting testimonies of the accused and the victim. The appellate court did not verify the arguments of the appeal complaints regarding the expert’s conclusions and the investigative experiment. Also, the appellate court did not properly assess all the arguments of the appeal complaints and did not render a lawful and well-reasoned decision.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the ruling of the appellate court and order a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 910/10935/24 dated 04/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of registration actions regarding the change of managers of two companies.
2. The Supreme Court considered cassation appeals against the ruling on securing the claim, which suspended the effect of the Ministry of Justice’s order, prohibited registration actions regarding companies, and prohibited former managers from acting on behalf of these companies. The court of cassation confirmed the legality of the prohibition on registration actions, as this ensures effective protection of the plaintiffs’ rights in case the claim is satisfied. The Supreme Court also agreed with the prohibition of former managers from taking any actions on behalf of the companies, as no evidence of the invalidity of the decisions on their dismissal was provided. At the same time, the Supreme Court overturned the suspension of the Ministry of Justice’s order, as such a measure is not provided for by law as a way to secure a claim in disputes regarding challenging decisions of state bodies. The court noted that there is no universal algorithm for applying measures to secure a claim, as their application depends on the circumstances of each specific case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the suspension of the effect of the Ministry of Justice’s order, but upheld the prohibition on registration actions and the prohibition of former managers from acting on behalf of the companies.
Case No. 758/10788/19 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s decision to release the convict from serving the sentence on probation under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic rules that resulted in serious bodily injury).
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, stating that the appellate court took a formal approach to the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, without taking into account the gravity of the crime, the consequences for the victim, gross violations of traffic rules, the improper condition of the car tires, the prolonged non-compensation of damages, and the victim’s position regarding real punishment.
circumstances. The appellate court failed to properly assess these circumstances and did not verify or evaluate the prosecutor’s arguments in the appeal, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine must be sufficiently motivated and justified, considering all the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the evidence provided by the defense did not refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the unfounded application of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment regarding the release from serving the sentence with probation and ordered a new appellate review in this part.
Case No. 273/870/22 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the electronic auction protocol, the act of realization of the mortgage object, and the certificate of acquisition of real estate.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which had granted the claim, reasoning that at the time of the electronic auctions, the executive inscription of the notary was valid, and the decision to recognize it as unenforceable was made later. The appellate court indicated that the circumstances that are the basis for recognizing the auctions as invalid must exist at the time of the auctions. Also, the appellate court referred to the case law of the Supreme Court, namely that the cancellation of a court decision in itself is not a basis for recognizing a transaction as invalid. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the existence of grounds for recognizing auctions as invalid must be established by the court at the time of their conduct. The Supreme Court also noted that the plaintiff did not provide other grounds for recognizing the electronic auctions as invalid, except for the cancellation of the executive inscription of the notary.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
**** The Court indicated that it departs from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, stated in the resolutions of November 07, 2018, in case No. 712/1317/14-ц and of February 07, 2019, in case No. 522/1516/15-ц, regarding the fact that the recognition of an executive inscription as unenforceable means that it was such from the moment of its commission, and therefore public auctions held on the basis of such an executive inscription are illegal and subject to invalidation.
Case No. 164/265/24 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of applying special confiscation of a tractor and trailer that were used to transport illegally cut timber.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not take into account that the tractor and trailer are the joint property of the convicted person and his wife, and also did not properly verify whether the wife was aware of the illega
Unlawful use of property. The court emphasized that special confiscation of property used for a crime is possible only if the owner was aware of it, and also that the confiscation must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and not place an excessive individual burden on the person. The court also noted that the appellate court did not substantiate the proportionality of the applied confiscation, did not take into account compensation for damages, sincere remorse of the convicted person, positive characteristics, and the significant difference between the value of the confiscated property and the amount of damages. The court pointed out the need to maintain a balance between the public interest and the convicted person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.
**Case No. 463/5301/20 dated 08/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open appellate proceedings on a complaint against the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to review a decision based on newly discovered circumstances.
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the investigating judge’s ruling refusing to open proceedings on an application for review based on newly discovered circumstances of the investigating judge’s ruling is not subject to appeal under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also took into account that the review of an application for review of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances is carried out by the same panel of judges that made the decision being reviewed, so the judge, when considering applications for review, actually acted as an investigating judge. The court of cassation emphasized that although the ruling stated that it was issued by the court and not by the investigating judge, this does not change the essence of the decision and does not lead to the need to apply other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding appellate appeal. Also, the court of cassation referred to the practice of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which allows the review of an investigating judge’s ruling based on newly discovered circumstances if it restricts the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person, but emphasized that in this case, an appellate appeal against the ruling refusing to open proceedings for review is not provided for by law.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 420/14466/24 dated 13/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine regarding the calculation of old-age pensions and the requirements for its recalculation taking into account a certain amount of average salary.
2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that in the case where a person was initially granted a seniority pension in accordance with one law, and then applied for an old-age pension in accordance with another law, then this is preciselyconsequences of an old-age pension, not a transfer from one type of pension to another. Accordingly, in such a case, the old-age pension should be calculated using the average salary indicator for the three years preceding the year of application for the old-age pension. The court emphasized that public authorities must act exclusively on the basis, within the limits of authority, and in the manner prescribed by law. The court also took into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding similar legal relations, emphasizing the need to ensure the right of citizens to social protection, in particular, to adequate pension provision.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and amended the reasoning part of the first instance court’s decision, leaving the decision on partial satisfaction of the claim in force.
Case No. 646/7597/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the correctness of the appellate court’s application of criminal law norms when sentencing Person_6 for committing a crime under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court incorrectly applied Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as Person_6 committed two identical crimes under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, one of which was committed before, and the other after the previous verdict was issued. The court emphasized that in such a case, the special rules of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine do not apply, and the final sentence is determined according to the rules of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine based on the aggregate of verdicts. The court referred to the legal position stated in the resolution of the joint chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court of February 8, 2021 (case No. 390/235/19), as well as in the resolution of January 22, 2024 (case No. 236/4167/20). Considering that the prosecution only requested the exclusion of the decision on the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the cassation appeal was partially satisfied.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, excluding the appellate court’s decision to impose a sentence based on Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposing a final sentence based on Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the form of imprisonment for a term of 6 years and 5 months with confiscation of property.
Case No. 320/4867/22 dated 13/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in case No. 320/4867/22 was the appeal against the order to dismiss PERSON_1 from his position in the Main Department of the National Police in the Kyiv region, as well as the claims for reinstatement and recovery of monetary allowance and additional remuneration.
The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the appellate court, agreed with the conclusions of the previous instance. The court presumably considered the arguments of the defendant, namely the Main Department of the National Police in the Kyiv region, regarding the legality
the plaintiff’s dismissal. It is possible that the dismissal was justified by a disciplinary violation, failure to perform official duties, or other grounds provided by the legislation on the National Police. The court could also take into account the materials of the internal investigation, evidence provided by the parties, and other circumstances of the case that confirm the legality of the defendant’s actions. Since the full text of the decision has not yet been drawn up, the detailed motives of the court remain unknown. However, given the outcome of the case, it can be assumed that the plaintiff’s arguments were found insufficient to satisfy the claims.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and to leave the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 910/14479/23 (910/5869/24) dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of appellate proceedings in the bankruptcy case of “Gran Komplekt” LLC due to the fact that the appeal was signed by a person who did not have the right to do so.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that from the moment “Gran Komplekt” LLC is declared bankrupt and the liquidation procedure is initiated, the powers of the company’s director are terminated, and only the liquidator (arbitration manager) has the right to act on behalf of the bankrupt. Since the appeal was signed by the former director after he lost his powers, the appellate court rightfully closed the appellate proceedings on the basis of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 264 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the liquidator’s recognition of the complaint signed by an unauthorized person nullifies the violation, since the imperative rule requires the closure of proceedings in such a case. The court emphasized that the application of the consequences of non-compliance with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code is not excessive formalism and does not restrict access to the court, and the liquidator is not deprived of the right to file his own appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Gran Komplekt” LLC and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 161/6489/22 dated 05/08/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the punishment imposed on him for committing a number of criminal offenses, including torture, illegal imprisonment, robbery, illegal handling of weapons, and desecration of a grave.
2. The court of cassation left unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, since the punishment was imposed taking into account the nature and degree of severity of the crimes committed, data on the identity of the convicted person, aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The court took into account that the crimes were serious and committed with intent, as well as the consequences of the unlawful behavior. Regarding the convicted person’s arguments about the excessive severity of the punishment, the court noted that the
and the circumstances referred to by the convicted person were taken into account by the court when imposing the sentence. The court also found it reasonable to take into account the aggravating circumstance – committing crimes while intoxicated, as this is confirmed by the testimony of the convicted person himself. In addition, the court emphasized the lawfulness of applying the principle of partial addition of sentences, rather than absorption of a less severe one by a more severe one, given the number of episodes of criminal activity and the severity of the consequences for the victim.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 636/5272/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the amendment of the judgment of the court of first instance in the part of sentencing under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code (illegal production, acquisition, storage of narcotic drugs).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, as it considers that the appellate court reasonably applied Article 69-1 of the Criminal Code, reducing the term of imprisonment to 2 years, taking into account sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime, as well as the defendant’s admission of guilt. The court of cassation instance noted that the positive characteristics of the accused only confirm the need to impose a sentence of imprisonment. The Supreme Court also indicated that the defense counsel’s arguments regarding the need to apply the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code (exemption from serving a sentence with probation) do not disprove the validity of the decisions of the previous instances regarding the length of the probationary period. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issues of sentencing and exemption from serving it are regulated by different sections of the Criminal Code and cannot be equated. The court also rejected the defense counsel’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances in those cases differ significantly.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 753/17344/19 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of minor children after the divorce of the parents and the recovery of alimony.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the fact that the case has been pending for a long time, and the circumstances have changed significantly: the children have been living with their father in the Republic of Kazakhstan for a long time, where they attend school, have friends and a stable environment. The court took into account the opinion of the children, expressed in the presence of a psychologist, about their desire to live with their father and their unwillingness to return to Ukraine or move to their mother in Portugal. The court also noted that it does not have the opportunity to verify the living conditions of the children with their mother in Portugal. Taking into account the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the court found it impractical to return the children to Ukraine. The court
He declared that in this situation, the primary goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, their psychological comfort, and stability. The court concluded that leaving the children with their father in a safe and familiar environment is in their best interests.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s decision, denying the mother’s request to determine the children’s place of residence with her and to recover alimony.
Case No. 160/7250/20 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order dismissing the plaintiff from the position of head of the archival department for systematic failure to perform official duties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the plaintiff’s dismissal was unlawful, as it was based on the same violations for which disciplinary sanctions in the form of reprimands had already been applied to him, some of which had been overturned by the court. The court noted that for a lawful dismissal for systematic failure to perform duties, the presence of a new offense after the application of a disciplinary sanction is necessary, which was not established in this case. The court also took into account that only one disciplinary sanction may be applied for each violation of labor discipline. In addition, the court of cassation rejected the appellant’s references to other decisions of the Supreme Court, as the circumstances of those cases differed from the circumstances of this case. The court also disregarded the documents submitted by the defendant, as they related to events that do not affect the disputed legal relations.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 911/3656/20 dated May 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision of the general meeting of the Agricultural Production Cooperative “Novoselytskyi” and the cancellation of the state registration of changes to the information about the legal entity.
2. The Supreme Court considered a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case for the purpose of conducting an expert examination. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court lawfully suspended the proceedings, as the case is being considered under the simplified procedure, which does not have a stage of preparatory proceedings where issues of appointing expert examinations are usually resolved. The court took into account that the restrictions on the suspension of proceedings provided for in Part 3 of Article 195 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine apply only to the general claim procedure in the court of first instance. Also, the court took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/13175/23, which clarified the application of Part 3 of Article 195 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 260/583/20 inід 12/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Mizhhiria District Council on the liquidation of the communal institution “Mizhhiria District Hospital” and the establishment of the communal non-profit enterprise “Medical and Preventive Institution Mizhhiria District Hospital”.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized as illegal the decisions of the Mizhhiria District Council on the liquidation of the hospital and the creation of the CNP. The Court noted that, firstly, according to the procedural law, after the closure of proceedings in the case by the Supreme Court in the order of administrative proceedings, proceedings in this case cannot be closed on the grounds that the dispute is not subject to resolution in the order of economic proceedings. Secondly, the claim for the cancellation of the decision on the liquidation of the hospital is an improper method of protection, since the proper method of protection is the claim for the cancellation of the state registration of the termination of the legal entity. Thirdly, the claim for the cancellation of the decision on the creation of a legal entity is an improper method of protection, since its satisfaction will not lead to the termination of the legal entity that has already been registered. The court also took into account that at the time of filing the claim, the disputed decisions had already been executed.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of satisfying the claims and refused to satisfy the claim for recognizing as illegal the decisions of the Mizhhiria District Council on the liquidation of the hospital and the creation of the CNP.
Case No. 560/8245/24 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Khmelnytskyi region to conduct an indexation of the plaintiff’s pension using certain coefficients of increase in the average wage.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, indicating that when recalculating pensions assigned in 2020-2023, in connection with the annual indexation, the indicator of the average wage, which is taken into account for calculating the pension, is subject to increase. The Court emphasized that Procedure No. 124 is subject to application exclusively in the part that does not contradict the provisions of Law No. 1058-IV, and the application of the provisions of paragraph 5 of Procedure No. 124 when indexing pensions, starting from 2020, is illegal. At the same time, the court noted that the right to indexation of pension is not absolute and may be limited by the term of application to the court, therefore, claims for the period exceeding the six-month period before the moment of application to the court remain without consideration. The court also took into account the conclusions stated in the resolution of the Supreme Court dated April 16, 2025 in case No. 200/5836/24, where no grounds were found for deviating from previous legal conclusions regarding the application of Article 42 of Law No. 1058-IV.
3. The court recognized as illegal the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyiof the Vinnytsia Oblast to index the plaintiff’s pension and obliged it to recalculate and pay the pension, taking into account the corresponding increase coefficients, but only within the six-month period prior to filing the lawsuit, leaving the claims for the previous period unexamined.
Case No. 606/1751/21 dated 05/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in moderate bodily injury).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal because the courts of previous instances reasonably found PERSON_6 guilty of violating traffic rules, which led to a traffic accident and caused bodily harm to the victim. The court took into account the conclusions of expert examinations, which confirm the violation by PERSON_6 of clauses 10.1 and 16.13 of the Traffic Regulations, as well as the existence of a causal relationship between these violations and the traffic accident. The Supreme Court noted that even if another driver also violated traffic rules, this does not relieve PERSON_6 of responsibility, as he had the opportunity to avoid the collision by following the rules. The Supreme Court also supported the decision of the appellate court to increase the amount of compensation for moral damages, taking into account the severity of the bodily injuries suffered by the victim and her moral suffering. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts acted within their powers in assessing the evidence and establishing the factual circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment and ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 569/19842/21 dated 24/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s judgment regarding the measure of punishment imposed on PERSON_6 for the illegal trafficking of psychotropic substances.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court, although it had legal grounds for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code (imposition of a punishment below the lowest limit), without proper justification, switched to a milder type of punishment – probationary supervision, which is not specified in the sanction of Article 307 of the Criminal Code. The court did not explain why this type of punishment would be sufficient to correct the convict and prevent new crimes, considering the severity of the crime and the number of episodes of criminal activity. Also, the cassation court noted that the appellate court did not properly refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the imposed punishment with the severity of the crime and the identity of the convict. The court of cassation emphasized that the correction of the convict involves eliminating the negative traits that led to the crime, and fostering respect for the law, which probationary supervision in this case will not be able to ensure.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and ordered a new hearing of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 9
**Case No. 04/5133/23 dated May 13, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the South-Eastern Interregional Territorial Department of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU Department).
2. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, supporting the decision of the AMCU Department. In justifying its position, the Supreme Court likely agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the absence of grounds for recognizing the decision of the AMCU Department as unlawful and its cancellation. It is possible that the courts of previous instances established that the AMCU Department acted within its powers and in accordance with the legislation on the protection of economic competition, and that the appealed decision is substantiated and lawful. Also, the court could have taken into account the evidence provided by the AMCU Department, which confirms the existence of violations of competition law by the Company and the Entrepreneur. The lack of an reasoned position of the third party (the Entrepreneur) could also have influenced the court’s decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of LLC “Engineering-Project-Production Company “Spetszakhist” and Private Entrepreneur Sovgyra Roman Pavlovych, and to leave the decision of the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and the постанову of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 910/10453/23 dated May 13, 2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract between the National Agency of Ukraine for Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets (ARMA) and PJSC “UKRNAFTA”.
The decision does not provide any arguments of the court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
**Case No. 646/2223/18 dated May 08, 2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the defender’s cassation appeal against the ruling of the appellate court, which upheld the verdict of the court of first instance regarding the conviction of a person for intentional murder.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the ruling of the appellate court, as the appellate court properly considered the defender’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the notices of suspicion and the indictment, examined the relevant documents, and provided reasoned conclusions. The appellate court took into account the position of the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in the resolution of January 15, 2024 (case No. 683/694/20). Also, the court of cassation instance agreed with the assessment of evidence provided by the courts of previous instances, in particular regarding the suitability of the knife as an instrument of crime, and rejected the defender’s arguments about the lack of proof of the convict’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, since the totality of evidence examined by the court of first instance was признана sufficient to establish guilt. The court of cassation instance did not establish significant violations of criminal procedural law that could have been
as a basis for overturning the appellate court’s ruling.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case №947/4452/24 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment and ruling regarding the conviction of a person for evading conscription for military service during mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances, when imposing the sentence, considered the severity of the crime, data on the identity of the guilty party, and circumstances mitigating the punishment, and came to a reasonable conclusion about the impossibility of applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving the sentence with probation). The appellate court reasonably noted that exemption from serving the sentence with probation would not ensure the realization of the purpose of the punishment, considering the public danger of the crime in the context of armed aggression and mobilization. Also, the court of cassation rejected the convict’s arguments about the failure to explain to him the consequences of the case’s consideration under Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the case materials confirm the court’s compliance with these requirements. The court found no grounds to believe that the convict was not provided with adequate legal assistance, as he refused a defender during the pre-trial investigation and trial.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the convict’s cassation appeal.
Case №727/11583/23 dated 08/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding PERSON_8, accused of robbery committed repeatedly under martial law, and the closure of criminal proceedings by the appellate court due to insufficient evidence.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and closed the criminal proceedings, motivating this by the fact that sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of PERSON_8 was not established and the possibilities of obtaining them were exhausted, while the court noted that it cannot take over the functions of the prosecution to eliminate the incompleteness of the investigation. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, stating that the appellate court did not refute the testimony of the victim and witnesses, who clearly indicated PERSON_8 as the person who committed the robbery, and also did not properly assess the testimony of PERSON_8 himself, which changed during the proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court gave a different assessment of the evidence, without specifying what the improper assessment of this evidence by the court of first instance consisted of. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not take into account that robbery is an open theft of property, that is, the seizure of property in the presence of the owner or other persons who are aware of the commission of the theft, which corresponds to the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court.
annulled the decision of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 300/6309/23 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the military unit regarding the determination of the causal connection of the serviceman’s death and the inaction regarding the failure to draw up a certificate of the circumstances of the injury.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the serviceman’s death was related to combat operations, which is decisive for the application of Instruction No. 332. The court noted that the appellate court did not examine all available evidence and did not assess the arguments of the appeal regarding the commander of the military unit exceeding his authority in determining the causal connection of the serviceman’s death. In addition, the Supreme Court took into account that the defendant corrected the challenged inaction by providing the necessary certificate of the circumstances of the injury, which is the basis for closing the proceedings in this part of the claims. The court of cassation emphasized that in order to properly resolve the case, it is necessary to establish whether the serviceman’s death was related to combat operations, and to assess the legality of the order of the commander of the military unit regarding the determination of the causal connection of the death.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the appellate court regarding the recognition of the order as illegal and the obligation to conduct an investigation into the death, sending the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and also closed the proceedings regarding the claims regarding the certificate of the circumstances of the injury due to the elimination by the defendant of the challenged inaction.
Case No. 910/14968/22 (910/6426/24) dated 12/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the return of the statement of claim due to non-payment of court fees and refusal to postpone its payment.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since the courts did not properly assess the property status of the plaintiff, who is in bankruptcy proceedings, and his arguments that the disputed sale and purchase agreement caused losses, and the return of the property would increase the liquidation estate to satisfy the creditors’ claims; in addition, the court of first instance, having refused to postpone the payment of court fees, simultaneously returned the statement of claim, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to remedy the deficiencies, which does not correspond to the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the refusal to postpone the payment of court fees without proper assessment of the plaintiff’s property status and arguments violates his right to access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 725/1375/19 dated 13/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Article 263 (illegal handling of weapons) and Part 3 of Article 368 (receiving unlawful benefit by an official) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The operative part of the ruling does not specify the court’s arguments. It can be assumed that the cassation court found significant violations of procedural law or incorrect application of substantive law by the appellate court, which led to the reversal of the verdict. It is possible that the convicted person’s rights to defense were violated, the evidence was not properly assessed, or the actions of the convicted person were incorrectly qualified. For an accurate understanding of the reasons for the reversal of the verdict, it is necessary to wait for the full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the decision. Also, the court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of 60 days.
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 904/1892/24 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the wagon lease agreement as concluded and the recovery of lost rental payments.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the parties in the agreement determined that the change of terms of the agreement, in particular regarding the amount of rent, is possible only with the consent of both parties, which is consistent with the general rule of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The plaintiff did not prove a material breach of the agreement by the defendant that would allow the court to change the terms of the agreement without the defendant’s consent. In addition, the court noted that the additional agreement, which the plaintiff requested to be recognized as concluded, provided for a change in the rent for the past period, which contradicts the principles of legal certainty and freedom of contract, since the extension of the agreement to the past period is possible only with the consent of the parties. The court also took into account that the parties had already agreed on the amount of rent in additional agreements during the disputed period. Based on these arguments, the court decided that there were no grounds for recognizing the additional agreement as concluded by court decision and for recovering lost rental payments.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 420/13322/23 dated 05/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax notices-decisions on the application of penalties for late submission of the report on controlled transactions and the notification of participation in an international group of companies for 2021.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts, which established that Global Ocean Link LLC violated the deadline for submitting reports, namely the report on controlled transactions and the notification of participation in an international group of companies for 2021, which is a violation of subparagraph 39.4.2 of paragraph 39
