**Case No. 991/6646/20 dated 05/19/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of PERSON_11 and PERSON_9 of abuse of office and making false entries in official documents during the purchase of a truck crane for the Berdyansk branch of the Ukrainian Sea Ports Authority (USPA).
2. The Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance, recognizing it as proven that PERSON_11, as the head of the Berdyansk branch of the USPA, abused his official position, acting in the interests of Kharkiv Montage-Production Enterprise “Elektropivdenmontazh” LLC (KhMPE), and PERSON_9, as the director of the Dnipro branch of KhMPE, facilitated this by making false entries in documents. The court found that the purchase of the truck crane was carried out with violations, in particular, a proposal that did not meet the requirements of the tender documentation was accepted, and the delivered crane did not meet the terms of the contract. The court also took into account that PERSON_11, despite the warnings of the anti-corruption commissioner, continued to cooperate with KhMPE. As a result of the actions of the accused, the Berdyansk branch of the USPA suffered losses in the amount of UAH 2,490,000, which is classified as serious consequences. The court also noted that voluntary compensation for damages does not disprove the fact of causing serious consequences.
3. The court rendered a guilty verdict, finding PERSON_11 and PERSON_9 guilty of committing crimes under Part 2 of Article 28, Part 2 of Article 364, and Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, imposing a sentence of imprisonment and a fine, but released them from serving the sentence under Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
**Case No. 911/164/22 (911/1670/23) dated 05/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the imposition of subsidiary liability on the former head and founder of “Naftova Kompaniya “Narodna” LLC for the company’s obligations in connection with bringing it to bankruptcy.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, pointing out that the appellate court did not fully ascertain the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence. In particular, the appellate court did not take into account that the person being held subsidiarily liable must prove the absence of their fault in bringing the company to bankruptcy, and also did not properly assess the actions of the former head regarding the transfer of funds to third parties during the period of debt to the tax authority and the bank. The court of cassation emphasized the need to investigate the circumstances related to the filling of the liquidation estate and noted that the head’s failure to provide primary financial documents to the liquidator is inaction that does not meet the interests of the legal entity and is dishonest. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court incorrectly distributed the burden of proof.
placing it on the liquidator, rather than on the former manager, who had to prove the legitimacy of his actions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 320/4867/22 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of dismissal of a police officer from service due to violation of official discipline and the Oath by failing to report for duty during martial law.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, stating that a police officer is obliged to perform official duties, especially during martial law, and has no right to arbitrarily determine the place of service without an order from the leadership. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s actions, although aimed at protecting the state, were committed outside the scope of official duties and without proper coordination with the leadership, which is a violation of the Oath and official discipline. The court noted that a police officer must act within the limits defined by regulatory legal acts and orders of the leadership, and not on the basis of independently made decisions. The court took into account that such behavior undermines confidence in the police and is incompatible with service, as the police officer removed himself from performing his duties in a critical period. The court also emphasized that the Oath of a police officer provides for conscientious performance of duties, and a violation is negligent or intentional failure to perform these duties.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 990/186/24 dated 19/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) to refuse to recommend the appointment of a person to the position of judge.
The court granted the claim, recognizing as unlawful and canceling the decision of the HQCJU to refuse to recommend the appointment of PERSON_1 to the position of judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, and also ordered the HQCJU to conduct a re-interview with the plaintiff. The court likely concluded that the HQCJU did not provide sufficient justification for refusing to make a recommendation, or that the interview procedure was conducted with violations that affected the objectivity of the candidate’s assessment. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff is the winner of the competition for the vacant position of judge. In addition, the court recovered from the HQCJU in favor of the plaintiff the costs of paying the court fee.
The court decided to satisfy the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 910/1799/24 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” to adjust the data in the market management system (MMS) regarding the volumes of generation and consumption of electricity by LLC “Renji Izmail” for a certain period.
2. The court of cassation supported
in the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of LLC “Renergy Izmail”, motivating it by the fact that the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protecting its rights. The court noted that satisfying the claims for recognition of electricity supply volumes and obligating PJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” to adjust the data in the MMS system would not restore the plaintiff’s violated right. The court took into account that the dispute regarding electricity production volumes had already been resolved in another case (No. 910/19641/23), where the courts found no grounds for data adjustment. The court also referred to the principle of procedural economy, which prevents artificial duplication of the court process. In addition, the court indicated that the demand for establishing certain facts cannot be an independent subject of consideration by the commercial court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Renergy Izmail” and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 991/3727/25 dated 05/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the approval of a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the accused in the case of offering illegal benefits to an official.
2. The court, approving the plea agreement, took into account that the agreement complies with the requirements of the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, in particular, regarding the voluntariness of its conclusion, the absence of violations of the rights of the parties, the possibility of the accused fulfilling the obligations assumed, and the compliance of the agreed punishment with the requirements of the law. The court also took into account the public interest in ensuring faster court proceedings, exposing a greater number of criminal offenses, as well as the accused’s assistance in the investigation of other crimes related to corruption in court. An important factor was the sincere remorse of the accused and her commitment to transfer funds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The court also took into account mitigating circumstances, such as the presence of a dependent requiring constant care, and the absence of aggravating circumstances.
3. The court approved the plea agreement and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for a term of 4 years, releasing her from serving the sentence with a probationary period of 1 year.
Case No. 754/4640/23 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal acquisition and storage of psychotropic substances for the purpose of selling them in especially large quantities (Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), with a request to reclassify the actions to illegal storage without the purpose of sale (Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, noted that in order to classify a crime under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (drug trafficking), it is necessary to prove the intent to sell, and the courts of previous instances
circumstances of the case properly, in particular, the moment of the intent to sell the psychotropic substance, given the short period of time between the discovery of the substance and the detention of the person. The court also emphasized that the large size of the seized substance alone is not sufficient evidence of intent to sell, especially when the person found this substance, and did not acquire it knowingly. The court took into account that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the defense’s claim of no intent to sell, and did not investigate all the circumstances of the acquisition and storage of the substance. Considering that the person is registered with a narcologist, and there is no other evidence of intent to sell narcotic substances, the court concluded that the actions should be reclassified.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, reclassified the person’s actions from Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and reduced the term of punishment.
**Case No. 907/491/17 dated 05/14/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Zakarpattia region (MD STS) to an individual entrepreneur (IE) in the bankruptcy case, in particular regarding fines and penalties.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially refused to recognize the claims of the MD STS, motivating this by the fact that the accrual of fines and penalties after the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case and the introduction of a moratorium on the satisfaction of creditors’ claims is illegal in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUzPB) and the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court noted that although the tax debt is agreed upon due to the lack of appeal of tax notification-decisions (TND), this does not cancel the prohibition on the accrual of fines and penalties after the introduction of the moratorium. The court also emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court has no authority to interfere in this evaluation. In addition, the court took into account that part of the fines and penalties were accrued for the period after the introduction of the moratorium, which contradicts the law. The court also noted that the tax authority, like other creditors, must submit claims to the debtor regarding its monetary obligations to pay taxes and fees that arose before the date of the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case, together with documents confirming these obligations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the MD STS, and upheld the decision of the Economic Court of the Zakarpattia region and the resolution of the Western Economic Court of Appeal in the part of the refusal to recognize monetary claims.
**Case No. 922/3156/24 dated 05/15/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the Eastern Interregionalof the Territorial Branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU Branch) on finding the Joint-Stock Company “Poltavakholod” (Company) guilty of violating the legislation on protection of economic competition and imposing a fine.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, as they mistakenly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” in the version in force after January 1, 2024, although the case was initiated before this date. The courts did not take into account that the AMCU decision was made on the basis of an antitrust case initiated after January 1, 2024, and therefore the new norms should have been applied. In addition, the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, regarding the identity of the issues in the AMCU’s requirements and the completeness of the information provided by the Company. The court of cassation also noted that the courts of previous instances did not investigate and assess the evidence in their totality, and did not indicate the reasons for rejecting the key arguments of the defendant. The court emphasized that the legislation on the protection of economic competition does not grant a business entity the right to decide at its own discretion on the form, method, and expediency of the AMCU’s request for information.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 873/532/23 dated May 15, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the arbitral tribunal’s decision on the recovery of funds under the supply contract.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate commercial court, which refused to satisfy the application to set aside the arbitral tribunal’s decision, motivating this by the fact that the parties in the supply contract clearly provided for the possibility of resolving disputes in the arbitral tribunal, agreed to the application of the regulations of this court, and even indicated a specific judge to consider such disputes. The court noted that the absence in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities of data on the management body of the founder of the arbitral tribunal (“board of directors”) does not invalidate the decisions made by this body, since the applicant did not provide evidence of the absence of information about this body in the constituent documents of the founder. The court also emphasized that the defendant did not object to the competence of the arbitral tribunal during the consideration of the case, and the principle of freedom of contract allows the parties to independently determine the terms of dispute resolution. The court indicated that the arguments of the appeal regarding the non-compliance of the composition of the arbitral tribunal with the requirements of the law are unfounded, since the case was subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the decision was made in a dispute provided for in the arbitration agreement, the agreement is valid, and the composition of the court met the requirements of the law.
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court.
Case No. 927/822/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the contract between the Municipal Enterprise “ATP-2528” of the Chernihiv City Council and the Department of Housing and Communal Services of the Chernihiv City Council as concluded.
2. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Military Administration, as it believes that the appellate court made incorrect conclusions regarding the interpretation of the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the establishment of the Chernihiv City Military Administration and the jurisdictional delimitation of powers between the Chernihiv City Council and the Chernihiv City Military Administration. The court of cassation instance pointed out the need to exclude these conclusions from the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, as they are not relevant to the resolution of the dispute regarding the conclusion of the contract. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not deny the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court on the merits of the dispute, but only clarified the reasoning part of the decision in order to avoid misinterpretation of legal acts. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the appellate court exceeded the scope of the case by assessing the powers of various authorities.
3. The Supreme Court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal of the Chernihiv City Military Administration, amending the appellate court’s ruling in the part excluding conclusions regarding the interpretation of the Decree of the President of Ukraine and the jurisdictional delimitation of powers, and in other parts, the appellate court’s ruling remained unchanged.
Case No. 920/792/22 dated May 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the natural gas sale and purchase agreement, as well as inflation losses, 3% per annum and penalties.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings, emphasizing that the suspension of proceedings is possible only if there are indisputable grounds, when the circumstances of the case cannot be established by the court independently due to the limitation of jurisdiction. The court noted that the appellate court did not substantiate the impossibility of considering the case on the basis of the available evidence, especially considering that the appeal concerned only the reduction of the penof pecuniary sanctions and inflationary losses. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court ignored the imperative provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which the court cannot refer to the objective impossibility of considering the case if the available evidence allows establishing the circumstances relevant to resolving the dispute. In addition, an unjustified suspension of proceedings leads to delays in the consideration of the case, which may violate the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 335/9390/20 dated May 13, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the acquittal of a person accused of committing corruption crimes, namely, abuse of office and extortion of unlawful gain.
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, as the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of PERSON_7’s guilt. The court noted that the charge of extortion of unlawful gain was based mainly on the testimony of one person, which was not supported by other evidence. Also, it was not proven that PERSON_7 received any personal benefit. Regarding the entry of false information into monitoring reports, the court pointed to the absence of evidence of knowingly false information and the provision of necessary documents by enterprises during inspections. The court also took into account the testimony of witnesses and the results of covert investigative actions, which did not confirm the fact of extortion or receipt of unlawful gain. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances about the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of PERSON_7 on both counts.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/13979/24 dated May 15, 2025
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 changes in the information about the All-Ukrainian Public Organization “Boxing Federation of Ukraine” (BFU) in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE).
2. The court granted the BFU’s application for securing the claim, based on the fact that failure to take such measures may lead to complications in the organization’s activities, in particular, through possible actions of the former management, which may try to withdraw from the claim or take other actions that contradict the interests of the organization. The court emphasized that the prohibition of registration actions related to the execution of the appealed order is temporary and does not impede the economic activities of the BFU, but is aimed at preserving the existing state of affairs until the dispute is resolved on the merits. The court took into account that the chosen method of securing the claim
agrees with the subject matter of the dispute, is not identical to the claims and corresponds to the circumstances of the case, and also does not resolve the dispute on the merits, but only preserves the status quo. The court also noted that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the appellant’s disagreement with the evaluation of evidence is not a ground for cassation review. The court emphasized that in non-property disputes, it is important to investigate whether the failure to take measures to secure the claim will lead to a violation of the requirements for fair and effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, and left the decision of the court of first instance and the постанову of the appellate court on securing the claim unchanged.
Case No. 910/9303/24 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract between the Condominium Association and the Construction Company.
2. The decision does not provide the court’s arguments that it relied on when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided. Usually, the cassation court checks the legality and validity of decisions of previous instances, based on the norms of substantive and procedural law. The decision is made on the basis of the arguments of the cassation appeal and the case materials, assessing the correctness of the application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances. If the cassation appeal is dismissed, it means that the cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court. In this case, the appellate court probably correctly applied the norms of legislation in resolving the dispute regarding the recognition of the contract as invalid, and the Construction Company was unable to provide convincing arguments for canceling the постанову of the appellate court.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Construction Company and left the постанову of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 140/2936/24 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the Volyn Regional Employment Center on the return of microgrant funds by an individual entrepreneur (IE) due to their misuse.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, refused to satisfy the claim, as it was established that the IE used the microgrant funds for unintended purposes, namely: less funds were used for the purchase of equipment than was provided for in the business plan, and more for the purchase of raw materials and materials. The courts found discrepancies between the business plan submitted through the Diia Portal and the business plan submitted to the bank for making payments, which indicates a change in the intended use of funds without the consent of the State Employment Center. The courts noted that the IE did not take the opportunity to apply to the State Employment Center to change the intended use of the microgrant funds.
as provided by law. The courts also took into account that, according to the terms of the microgrant agreement, the funds were to be used for the intended purpose specified in the business plan. The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s reference to changes in legislation that occurred after the adoption of the disputed order, stating that they could not be applied to the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the individual entrepreneur’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 420/20215/23 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the border detachment regarding the failure to accrue and pay indexation of monetary allowance to the plaintiff for the period of military service.
2. The court of cassation instance found that the court of appeal instance had made a mistake in determining the proper defendant in the case, since the plaintiff was undergoing military service and receiving monetary allowance in a specific border detachment during the disputed period. The court emphasized that indexation of monetary allowance is a payment that is made at the place where the serviceman is on monetary allowance, and limited funding cannot affect the serviceman’s right to receive indexation. The court also noted that the appellate court’s reference to internal orders of the State Border Guard Service does not refute the norms of law governing the issue of indexation of monetary allowance. The court pointed to the incomplete clarification of the circumstances of the case by the appellate court, in particular, whether the plaintiff was paid indexation upon dismissal from the last place of service.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision and sent the case back for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 905/998/23 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from Public Joint Stock Company “Donbasenergo” in favor of Limited Liability Company “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” of the amount of UAH 677,906,506.53.
2. The decision does not contain any arguments of the court. From the text of the document, it is clear only that the lower courts refused to satisfy the claim, and the Supreme Court agreed with their decisions. To provide a meaningful analysis, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the full text of the court decision, including the reasoning part.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “GSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 927/1237/23 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded and the obligation to make changes to the State Register of Real Property Rights regarding the extension of the lease right.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which had refused to satisfy the claim of PrJSC “Corporation “Interagrosystem” against the Mena City Council. The court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that, in order to renew the land lease agreement, the lessee must properly fulfill its obligations under the agreement. In this case, the courts found that PrJSC “Corporation “Interagrosystem” had acted in bad faith in fulfilling its obligations under the lease agreement, in particular, it allowed arrears in rent payments and used land plots for purposes other than their intended purpose, concluding agreements that were effectively disguised subleases. The court also noted that the terms of the land lease agreement can be changed only with the consent of the parties, and there is no evidence in the case file that the defendant gave such consent to change the terms of the agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence that was examined by the previous instances, and its powers are limited only to verifying compliance by the courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 903/823/24 dated May 19, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Python Trade” in favor of PJSC “Volynoblenergo” of the cost of unaccounted electricity.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case, indicating that the appellate court had mistakenly applied paragraph 5 of part one of Article 227 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account that the available evidence allows establishing and evaluating the circumstances of the case, and therefore, there is no objective impossibility to consider the case. The court noted that the appellate court did not substantiate in what way it is impossible to independently establish the circumstances that are established by the court in another case. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that when considering claims for recovery of the cost of unaccounted electricity, the court is obliged to establish and evaluate the circumstances regarding compliance by PJSC “Volynoblenergo” with the requirements of the legislation when making a decision on the accrual of this cost.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for continued consideration to the appellate commercial court.
Case No. 159/483/24 dated April 22, 2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal possession of weapons (Part 1, Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
In its decision, the Supreme Court, leaving the appellate court’s verdict unchanged, proceeded from the fact that the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly evaluated the evidence provided by the parties, and came to a correct conclusion.
of a reasoned conclusion about the person’s guilt in committing the crime imputed to them. The cassation court did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decisions. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court provided exhaustive answers to all the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal, and therefore there are no grounds to overturn or change the appealed sentence. The cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts regarding the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the measure of punishment.
Court decision: The defense counsel’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the appellate court’s sentence regarding the convicted person was upheld.
Case No. 904/2576/22 (904/1309/24) dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the seizure of the leased asset from the lessee, against whom bankruptcy proceedings have been initiated, due to non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
2. The cassation court overturned the decisions of the previous courts, stating that the courts did not examine all the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the delay in lease payments that occurred before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings, and did not take into account the expiration of the lease agreements and the defendant’s obligation to notify about the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings against them. The court also noted that the appellate court mistakenly decided that the plaintiff did not specify the expiration of the lease term and the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings as grounds for the return of the leased asset in the claim. In addition, the cassation court emphasized that the introduction of a moratorium on satisfying creditors’ claims does not mean the suspension of the debtor’s operational and economic activities and does not prohibit the fulfillment of the obligation to return the leased asset, which does not belong to the debtor by right of ownership, in connection with the termination/expiration of the financial lease agreement.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/4546/24 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the unilateral transaction of the Department of Transport Infrastructure regarding the early termination of the agreement on the organization of passenger transportation with LLC “Politekhavto-B” as invalid.
2. The cassation court agreed with the conclusions of the previous courts that the dispute is subject to consideration in the commercial court, since it arose from contractual relations between the customer and the carrier in connection with the implementation of economic activities, and not from the authoritative management functions of the Department. The court noted that the use by LLC “Politekhavto-B” of vehicles adapted for the transportation of persons with limited physical abilities is not a violation of the terof the contract, since the requirements for the minimum number of seats do not apply to such vehicles. The court also pointed out that the Department had not proven the existence of grounds for unilateral termination of the contract, and its arguments amounted to a reassessment of the evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation court. Regarding court costs, the court of cassation partially granted the defendant’s cassation appeal, reducing the amount of reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in the appellate instance, taking into account the criteria of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness. The court took into account that some types of lawyer’s services are actually absorbed by others, and also partially agreed with the defendant’s arguments about the inflated amount of expenses.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recognition of a unilateral transaction as invalid, but changed the additional ruling of the appellate court, reducing the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance to be recovered from the Department in favor of Politekhavto-B LLC.
Case No. 914/2506/24 dated 05/16/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the return of the counterclaim of Malvy Development Company LLC to the Department of Economic Development of the Lviv City Council regarding the recognition of the invalidity of the equity participation agreement.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the counterclaim of Malvy Development Company LLC, since the company missed the deadline set by the court to eliminate the deficiencies in the submitted application, and did not file a motion to restore this deadline. The court emphasized that the ten-day period for eliminating deficiencies, established by Article 174 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, is imperative and cannot be extended by the court on its own initiative, but only renewed at the request of a party to the case if there are valid reasons. Also, the court noted that the appellant’s reference to the practice of the Supreme Court is irrelevant, as it relates to other factual circumstances. The court emphasized that each party bears the risk of the consequences associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions by it, and that access to justice is not absolute and is subject to state regulation.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Malvy Development Company LLC, and left the ruling of the Commercial Court of Lviv Oblast and the постанову (ruling) of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 922/2372/24 dated 05/20/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, dismissing the Company’s cassation appeal. In substantiating the decision, the court probably agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the legality of the decision of the AMCU Branch. Perhaps the courtmaintained the position that the actions of the Company contain signs of violation of competition law, or did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the decision of the Branch of the AMCU. Also, the court could take into account the evidence provided by the Branch of the AMCU, and consider it sufficient to confirm the validity of the decision. It is important that the court of cassation did not find any violations of substantive or procedural law that could lead to the cancellation of the appellate court’s decision.
The court ruled: to leave the cassation appeal of the Joint Stock Company “Operator of the Gas Distribution System “Kharkivgaz” without satisfaction, and the decision of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal – without changes.
Case No. 911/1403/23 dated 05/13/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as illegal and cancellation of the decision of the Bila Tserkva City Council to terminate the right of permanent use of the land plot granted to the Department of the Bila Tserkva Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, motivating this by the fact that the religious organization did not fulfill the requirements of the Law of Ukraine regarding the change of its name in connection with subordination to the religious center in the aggressor state, which casts doubt on its legal status. The court emphasized that failure to comply with the requirements of the law regarding the change of the name of a religious organization is a manifestation of bad faith behavior, which may lead to the loss of the right to permanent use of the land plot. Also, the court took into account that the land plot was not used by the plaintiff for its intended purpose since its receipt. The court noted that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the obligation of religious organizations to change their name as constitutional. The court also took into account that without a name, a legal entity cannot exist as a subject of law.
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 560/3966/23 dated 05/19/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the National Academy of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine regarding the failure to pay a serviceman an additional reward of UAH 100,000 for participating in combat operations.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the serviceman’s claim, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence, in particular extracts from the journal of service and combat operations. The court noted that confirmation of participation in combat operations should be based on a set of information from various documents, and not only on their totality. The court also indicated that a violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units cannot be the basis for refusing to pay the reward, if there is other
