**Case No. 910/10453/23 dated May 13, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421071](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421071)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the agreement on the transfer of corporate rights (shares) management, concluded between ARMA and PJSC “UKRNAFTA”.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff is not a party to the disputed agreement and did not prove the violation of its rights. The court noted that the order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, on the basis of which the agreement was concluded, is valid, and the commercial court does not have the authority to assess its legality. In addition, the court indicated that the very fact of concluding the agreement does not indicate the actual transfer of assets, and permission for concentration was obtained from the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. The court also emphasized that the restrictions on the plaintiff’s rights as a shareholder arose as a result of the seizure of his assets in criminal proceedings, which is a temporary measure. The court also took into account changes in legislation regarding the specifics of concentration in the energy sector during martial law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 904/5743/20 dated May 15, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421082](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421082)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region against “Prodeksport-2009” Limited Liability Company in the bankruptcy case.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, as a violation of procedural law was established, namely the participation of judge Parusnikov Yu.B. in the repeated consideration of the case in the appellate instance, although he had previously participated in the decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that in accordance with Article 36 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, a judge who participated in the resolution of a case in the court of appeal instance cannot participate in the consideration of the same case in the courts of cassation or first instance, as well as in a new consideration of the case after the cancellation of the decision of the court of appeal instance. The Supreme Court pointed out that the automated case distribution system was violated, as judge Parusnikov Yu.B. was included in the panel of judges during the repeated consideration of the appeal, which is a violation of the established procedure. Considering the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the case was considered by an unauthorized composition of the court, which is an unconditional basis for the cancellation of the decision.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the Central Commercial Court of Appeal and to send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal instance.
**Case No. 916/1431/24 dated May 19, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421269](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421269)
1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use and disposal of property, namely the return of the anti-radiation shelter to the state.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court to refuse to secure the claim, as the prosecutor did not provide sufficient
no evidence to substantiate the need for such measures. The appellate court correctly noted that the prosecutor failed to prove that failure to take measures to secure the claim could complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision or effectively protect the rights of the state. The court also considered that the prosecutor did not apply for securing the claim at previous stages of the case, without providing any justification for the change in circumstances that would necessitate such measures. The court of cassation emphasized that the burden of proving the necessity of securing the claim lies with the applicant, and mere reference to the potential possibility of the defendant evading the court decision without providing relevant justification is not a sufficient basis for granting the application. The court also noted that the prosecutor is not deprived of the right to re-apply for securing the claim in the event of a change in circumstances.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/1383/24 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a clause in the procurement agreement that included VAT in the price of the goods, and the recovery of the amount of this VAT, since the plaintiff believed that as a state customer in the field of defense, it was exempt from paying VAT.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, because for exemption from VAT according to the Tax and Customs Codes, it is necessary that the goods be imported into the customs territory of Ukraine in the customs regime of import in compliance with certain conditions, in particular, providing documentary confirmation of the conformity of the goods to the requirements established for goods of defense purpose during customs clearance. Since the defendant did not provide such confirmation during customs clearance of the goods, it rightfully included VAT in the value of the goods. The court also noted that although VAT is included in the price of the goods, this is not a condition of the price agreement, which the parties can change by agreement. In the event of non-compliance of the terms of the agreement with the imperative provisions of the law, such a condition is void, and its recognition as invalid in court is not required.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, changing only their reasoning parts.
Case No. 910/14968/22 (910/9453/22) dated 05/12/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who was not a party to the case, against the decision of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, motivating it by the fact that the person who filed the appeal (PERSON_1) missed the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance and did not file a motion to renew this deadline. The court noted that the deadline for appealing had expired, and the appellate court rightfully left the complaint without consideration, providing time to remedy the shortcomings.
deficiencies. Since the deficiencies were not remedied, the appellate court reasonably refused to open appellate proceedings. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s arguments that the deadlines for parties to the case do not apply to him, since he was not a party to the case, considering such an interpretation erroneous. The court also emphasized that the appellate court took appropriate measures to ensure the right to appeal, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine.
3. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/1767/24 dated May 15, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of commercial concession agreements concluded between two companies, one of which is a company in which the plaintiff owns 60% of the authorized capital.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that his rights were violated by the conclusion of the disputed agreements. The court noted that the signing of the agreement on behalf of the company without prior approval by the general meeting may indicate a violation of the rights and interests of the company itself, and not the corporate rights of its participant. The court referred to the established practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which a shareholder cannot be considered a proper applicant when it comes to violations of the rights of a legal entity. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly emphasized that the proper plaintiff in such cases is the legal entity whose rights have been violated, and not its participant, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances courts.
Case No. 922/3542/24 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages and the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant. The court of cassation emphasized that the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided and their price, and also take into account the criteria of reality and reasonableness. The court of cassation noted that the appellate court reasonably established that the expenses declared by the defendant did not meet these criteria, and therefore reduced their amount to an amount that is commensurate with the services actually provided. The court of cassation also indicated that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the appellate court. The court of cassation rejected the appellant’s reference to the failure of the previous instances courts to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, since it established that the decision was made taking into account all the necessary criteria that apply to the distribution of responsi
of related court costs.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 910/5335/21 dated 15/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of creditor claims of “Kyivteploenergo” Municipal Enterprise against “Energopol-Ukraine” PJSC in the bankruptcy case of the latter.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to recognize the creditor claims of “Kyivteploenergo” in the amount of UAH 1,676,350.04, consisting of debt for centralized heating and hot water supply services at certain addresses, because the courts did not take into account that the consideration of the “Kyivteploenergo” application on the merits began after the circumstances referred to by the appellate court when refusing to accept additional evidence. In addition, the courts did not clarify the circumstances regarding the inventory of the debtor’s property by the property manager, in particular, the presence/absence of the relevant apartments in its composition. The court of cassation instance noted that the applicant was not deprived of the opportunity to submit explanations, clarifications, documents to the court, which in their consequence and content do not change the essence of the stated claims, do not affect the results of their consideration, but actually specify the stated claims, refute the arguments of the parties to the case regarding these claims. At the same time, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of the refusal to recognize the claims consisting of penalties, inflation charges, 3% per annum, and court fees.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate and local commercial court in the part of the refusal to recognize the creditor claims of “Kyivteploenergo” Municipal Enterprise in the amount of UAH 1,676,350.04 and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, and left the rest of the decision unchanged.
Case No. 910/1833/24 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damages and recovery of debt under the vehicle (locomotive) lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which established that “Ukrainian Locomotive Building Company” LLC ensured the arrival of the locomotive at the junction station, and “Donbas Industrial and Transport Enterprise” LLC violated the deadline for accepting the locomotive for lease, which, according to the terms of the agreement, means accepting the locomotive without comments. The court rejected the arguments of “Donbas Industrial and Transport Enterprise” LLC that it did not have the opportunity to accept the locomotive due to its redeployment to the access track, since, according to the agreement, the operation of the locomotive was to take place there. The court also rejected the reference of “Donbas Industrial and Transport Enterprise” LLC to the impossibility of using the locomotive due to hostilities, as this contradicts its position on not accepting the locomotive. The court emphasized that in order to be exempted from the fee for using the property in accordance with Article 762 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove the fact that it is impossible to use the property due to
independent of the employer’s reasons, which was not done in this case.
3. The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of “Donbas Industrial and Transport Enterprise” LLC without satisfaction, and to leave the ruling of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 910/12312/24 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “NEW ENERGY UKRAINE” LLC for the adoption of an additional decision regarding compensation for expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application for compensation of expenses for professional legal assistance, was guided by the following arguments: firstly, the right to professional legal assistance is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine; secondly, one of the principles of commercial proceedings is the reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision is made; thirdly, the amount of expenses for legal assistance must be proven, documented and meet the criterion of reasonable necessity; fourthly, the court takes into account the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent by the lawyer, as well as the price of the claim and the importance of the case for the party; fifthly, the court takes into account the objections of the other party regarding the excessiveness of expenses, in particular, analyzes the justification of the time spent on the preparation of procedural documents, taking into account the stability of the legal position of the parties and the established nature of regulatory regulation. The court noted that the criterion of reasonable necessity of expenses is evaluative and is determined by the court taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The court partially satisfied the application of “NEW ENERGY UKRAINE” LLC and ruled to recover UAH 18,000 from PJSC “NATIONAL ENERGY COMPANY “UKRENERGO” to compensate for expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
**Case No. 921/403/24 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for unauthorized selection of natural gas, as well as inflation losses, penalties and 3% per annum.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing with their conclusions regarding the partial refusal to recover inflation losses. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide specific objections regarding the calculation of inflation losses made by the court of first instance, and its arguments are limited only to disagreement with court decisions. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively clarified the circumstances of the case and properly assessed the evidence. In addition, the court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the conclusions of the courts of previous instances and establish new circumstances. The court of cassation instance pointed out that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not indicate incorrect or inconsistent application by the courts of previous instances of the conclusions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 922/733/24 dated 05/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the assignment of claim agreement between two companies connected by a common beneficial owner.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which recognized the assignment of claim agreement as invalid because it had signs of fraudulence, that is, it was concluded in order to avoid fulfilling obligations to the creditor. The court noted that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, the debtor already had an obligation to pay the debt, confirmed by a court decision, and the assignment of the claim was made in favor of a related party. The court also took into account that the actions of the parties after the conclusion of the agreement were aimed at making it impossible to seize the debtor’s funds. The court emphasized that a fraudulent transaction may be declared invalid on the basis of general principles of civil law, such as good faith and inadmissibility of abuse of rights, even if it does not violate specific mandatory norms. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments that the plaintiff had already taken measures to recover the debt, since the existence of a fraudulent transaction and violation of the plaintiff’s right existed at the time of the conclusion of the assignment of claim agreement.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 910/6632/23 dated 05/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” in favor of SE “Guaranteed Buyer” of debt for provided services to ensure an increase in the share of electricity production from alternative sources, as well as penalties, fines, 3% per annum and inflationary losses.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the existence of grounds for partial satisfaction of the claim, since PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” did not properly fulfill its obligations under the agreement to pay for the services provided by SE “Guaranteed Buyer”. The court noted that the accrual of inflationary losses and 3% per annum is lawful, since it is a way to protect the property right and interest of the creditor in connection with the delay in the monetary obligation. Also, the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure of the courts of previous instances to take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases, since the circumstances of these cases differ from the circumstances of this case. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case, the examination and evaluation of evidence is the authority of the courts of the first and appellate instances, and it has no right to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. In addition, the court found the appellant’s arguments about the refusal to satisfy the motion for the appointment of an expert examination and the postponement of the execution of the decision to be unfounded.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the appealed part remained unchanged.
with amendments.
**Case No. 922/3542/24 dated May 13, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421103](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421103)
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred by Ideasoft Solutions LLC in the court of appeal.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the application of Ideasoft Solutions LLC for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance, reducing their amount to UAH 26,000. The court proceeded from the fact that the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance should be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of services provided, the time spent, and the price of the claim. The court also took into account that the claimed expenses in the amount of UAH 265,000 are disproportionate to the complexity of the case, do not meet the criterion of reasonableness of their amount, and constitute an excessive burden for the other party. The court noted that the obligations between the lawyer and the client are not binding on the court, and the court must assess the expenses to be compensated, taking into account their necessity and proportionality. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence collected by the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Ideasoft Solutions LLC, and left the additional ruling of the Eastern Economic Court of Appeal unchanged.
**Case No. 910/13544/22 dated May 13, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421110](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421110)
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine on the cancellation of the registration action regarding the termination of Ekipazh LLC by way of liquidation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, granting the claim of PERSON_1, based on the fact that the Ministry of Justice violated the procedure for considering the complaint, since a repeated consideration of the complaint without the cancellation of the previous decision by the court is not provided for by law. The court noted that the powers of the Ministry of Justice are limited to controlling procedural issues, and not resolving disputes regarding the content of documents or the legality of decisions of the legal entity’s bodies. It is important that at the time of consideration of the complaint by the Ministry of Justice, the decision of the general meeting of Ekipazh LLC on liquidation was valid, and the complainants did not provide evidence of forgery of the minutes. The court also took into account that, according to the conclusion of the forensic handwriting examination, the participants of Ekipazh LLC personally signed the minutes of the general meeting of February 17, 2022.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rendered a new decision granting the claim of PERSON_1, recognizing as illegal and canceling the order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
**Case No. 914/2760/23 dated May 14, 2025**
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421087](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127421087)
1. The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Department of Communal Property to oblige the Institution of Higher Education “Lviv University of Business and Law” to return the leased premises due to the expiration of the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which granted the claim of the Department of Communal
of property, obliging the University to return the leased object. The court took into account that the lease agreement expired during martial law, but the automatic extension of the agreement did not occur, as the balance holder (Lyceum “European”) had previously informed about the need to use the premises for its own needs. An important argument was the prejudicial significance of the circumstances established in the previous case No. 914/3063/22, where the courts had already considered the issue of the lawfulness of the refusal to extend the lease agreement and recognized it as justified. The court of cassation emphasized that these circumstances do not require repeated proof, and the University did not provide adequate evidence to refute these facts. In addition, the court noted that the University’s cassation appeal does not contain substantiated arguments regarding the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law, and the references to the practice of the Supreme Court are abstract and do not take into account the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 910/6410/23 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the elevator to return the grain to the bailor and the recovery of debt for storage services.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which obliged the elevator to return the grain, as the storage period specified in the contract had expired, and the additional agreement to extend the storage period was declared unconcluded based on the expert opinion on the forgery of the bailor’s director’s signature. The court rejected the elevator’s arguments about the legality of withholding the grain due to the existence of debt, as proper notification of the bailor about the application of the right of retention was not proven. The court also rejected the elevator’s reference to electronic correspondence as evidence of agreement on the additional agreement, as it was not established that it related specifically to this agreement. The court noted that the presence of a seal on the additional agreement does not confirm the agreement of its terms by the bailor, since at the moment the presence or absence of the imprint of the business entity’s seal on the document does not create legal consequences.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 910/6368/24 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from NAEK Energoatom JSC in favor of TSM Group Corporation in connection with the consideration of an application for deferral of the execution of a court decision and appellate review of a court order.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, agreeing that the expenses for professional legal assistance were justified and documented. The court noted that in the case of establishing a fixed amount
regarding the fee, as in this case, it is not required to calculate the actual amount of time spent by the attorney or the scope of work performed. Also, the court indicated that the burden of proving the disproportionality of expenses lies with the party filing a motion to reduce these expenses, which the defendant failed to do. The court emphasized that the failure to submit a preliminary calculation of court costs is not an unconditional basis for refusing their reimbursement, especially if it did not prevent the party from expressing its considerations regarding the validity and proportionality of the expenses. The court took into account that the defendant did not apply for a reduction in the amount of legal aid expenses and did not prove the disproportionality of these expenses.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeals of JSC NNEGC “Energoatom” without satisfaction, and to leave the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 910/7488/24 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the conclusion of an additional agreement to the contract of purchase and sale of natural gas.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, pointing out that the courts did not ascertain the actual content of the additional agreement, the will of the parties, and their intentions regarding the extension of payment terms for gas, and also did not take into account other provisions of the contract regarding force majeure circumstances that could affect the fulfillment of obligations. The court noted that the courts did not properly assess the terms of the additional agreement in relation to other provisions of the contract, which is essential for establishing the circumstances of the case. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that amending a contract by court decision is an exceptional measure that can be applied only in cases provided for by the Civil Code of Ukraine, and the plaintiff did not prove the existence of such grounds. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the principle of “jura novit curia” and did not establish the content of the parties’ legal relations, and also did not ascertain whether force majeure circumstances prevented the fulfillment of obligations.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 915/1619/23 dated 05/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the closure of appellate proceedings on the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the court of first instance on the recovery of debt from a state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, noting that the appellate court mistakenly closed the proceedings, as the prosecutor appealed the decision of the court of first instance in the interests of the state, namely the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPF), which is the management body of the property of the state enterprise undergoing privatization; the court of cassation emphasized that the decision to recover debt from the state enterprise affects its property status and, accordingly, the interests of the state represented by the SPF, especially considering that both the prosecutor and the SPF argued about the nullity of the contract, on
on the basis of which the debt was recovered; the court of cassation emphasized that a void transaction is invalid from the moment of its completion and does not create legal consequences, and the court must take into account the voidness of the transaction on its own initiative; the court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not take into account that the peculiarity of the case is that both the prosecutor and the State Property Fund of Ukraine argued about the voidness of the contract, on the basis of which the debt was recovered.
3. The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 910/10935/24 dated 04/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness 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 court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, supporting their conclusions on the legality of the actions of the private notary during the registration actions. The court noted that the powers of attorney of representatives of foreign companies were properly executed in accordance with the laws of Cyprus and the Hague Convention, and a technical error in the name of one of the companies does not affect the essence of the decision of the general meeting. The court also emphasized that the administrative fee for expedited registration was paid in full, and the distribution of funds between the state budget and the private notary complies with the law. The court rejected the arguments of the appellants regarding the violation of the procedure for determining judges, since the case concerns issues related to the bankruptcy of one of the companies, and was considered by judges of the relevant specialization. In addition, the court found no grounds for involving third parties in the case, as the decision does not concern their rights and obligations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 466/2086/14-ц dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the local self-government body on the transfer of a land plot into private ownership, as well as the recognition of the state act for land as invalid.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the application for review on exceptional circumstances, since circumstances were established that were not and could not have been known to the courts during the consideration of the case, namely: the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which affects the correct application of substantive law in the disputed legal relations. The court took into account that the prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the state, namely the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine and the State Territorial-Branch Association “Lviv Railway”, regarding a land plot that, according to the prosecutor’s office, was illegally transferred to private ownership. The court also took into account that the courts of previous instances did not properly take into account the interests of the state when resolving the dispute. In addition, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court pointed out the need to take into account legal po
sitions outlined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which are important for resolving similar land disputes. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring legality and fairness in resolving land disputes, especially when it concerns the interests of the state and the territorial community.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine and the decision of the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal, remanding the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 420/22108/21 dated 05/08/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices that increased income tax and reduced the amount of negative value of the object of taxation due to the non-compliance of the conditions of controlled transactions with the “arm’s length” principle.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the controlling body did not prove that the sources of information it used to establish the compliance of the terms of a controlled transaction with the “arm’s length” principle allow for a higher level of comparability of commercial and financial terms of transactions than those used by the taxpayer. The court also emphasized that the controlling body mistakenly identified the list of enterprises as comparable to the plaintiff’s activities, and the sources of information used by it are unreliable and untrustworthy. In addition, the court pointed out errors in the calculations of the controlling body regarding the determination of the price range, the lower and upper quartiles, as well as the median. The court also took into account the conclusions of forensic examinations, which confirmed the validity of the plaintiff’s use of the comparable uncontrolled price method with internal comparison and the compliance of the prices of controlled transactions with the “arm’s length” principle. It is important that the court emphasized that the controlling body unlawfully applied profitability indicators that are used in another transfer pricing method, and also did not take into account significant differences between the transshipment of different types of cargo.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
**Case No. 990SCGS/6/25 dated 05/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility in the form of a warning.
2. The court, upholding the decision of the HCJ to bring the judge to disciplinary responsibility, proceeded from the fact that the judge of the appellate court, reviewing the case of an administrative offense, groundlessly released a person from responsibility for driving under the influence of alcohol, applying an article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine that was not subject to application to this offense at the time of commission. The court noted that the administrative offense provided for in Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine has an increased public danger, and the judge’s actions led to negative conssuch as the offender evading responsibility, failure to fulfill the tasks of the Code of Administrative Offenses regarding the upbringing of the offender, non-receipt of the fine into the state budget, and undermining the authority of justice. The court also considered that the judge had sufficient work experience, was aware of the consequences of their actions, and that such violations were systematic. The court rejected the judge’s arguments that the High Council of Justice was actually evaluating the court decision, noting that it was the judge’s actions during the administration of justice that were being evaluated, not the decision itself. The court also rejected arguments regarding violations of the case review procedure, including the unauthorized composition of the Disciplinary Chamber and violations of the case review deadlines.
3. The court decided to dismiss the judge’s complaint and uphold the decision of the High Council of Justice.
Case No. 672/1106/23 dated 07/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of a land lease agreement, recovery of rent, penalties, and inflationary losses.
2. The court of appeal returned the appeal, considering that the lawyer did not have proper authority, as the warrant did not contain the lawyer’s signature and did not specify the appellate court as the body where legal aid is provided. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the lawyer had already participated in the case in the court of first instance based on a warrant that was contained in the case file, and this warrant indicated the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court considers that the appellate court prematurely returned the complaint, as the lawyer’s authority was duly confirmed. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to an appellate review of the case, which is an integral part of the constitutional right to judicial protection.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case back to the court of appeal for continued review.
Case No. 380/1794/24 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, which returned the statement of claim to the plaintiff regarding the claims for payment of average earnings for the delay in payment of indexation, as the plaintiff applied to the court after missing the one-month deadline established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that the deadline for applying to the court with a claim for recovery of average earnings for the delay in settlement upon dismissal should be calculated from the date of actual payment of each individual payment. The court emphasized that each individual payment terminates the delay within the corresponding part of the debt, and this is the completion of a certain episode of violation, which gives grounds for applying the liability provided for in Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the deadline should be calculated from the moment of final settlement, as
