Case №757/37682/23-к dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Kyiv Court of Appeal to open appellate proceedings on the defense counsel’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, stating that the appellate court did not take into account the defense counsel’s arguments regarding significant violations of the criminal procedure law by the court of first instance, namely, the groundless withdrawal from the examination of evidence. The court emphasized that the provisions of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine do not provide for an absolute waiver of the right to appeal, but only limit the appeal of circumstances that were not disputed during the trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment rendered pursuant to Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine may be appealed in connection with a significant violation of the rights of the accused. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court prematurely assessed the arguments of the appeal at the stage of deciding on the opening of proceedings, which contradicts the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case №127/10958/22 dated 05/14/2025
The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for spreading communist symbols on a social network.
The cassation court found that the appellate court did not properly verify the arguments of the convicted person’s appeal, in particular, regarding the lack of access by third parties to his social network page, since the page was accessed by SSU employees using a password provided by the accused himself. The court also noted that the appellate court did not refute the convicted person’s arguments that the communist symbols were not disseminated on the territory of Ukraine, and that access to the page was limited to a limited number of people who are not citizens of Ukraine. In addition, the cassation court indicated that the appellate court did not adequately substantiate the conclusion that the graphic material with communist symbols was available for viewing by an unlimited number of people, since the inspection report recorded a page with full access granted by the accused. Thus, the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the appeal, without providing proper reasoning for its conclusions.
The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case №639/164/23 dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of weapons, ammunition or explosives).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, pointing out that the appellate court did not fully comply with the requirements of the law when reviewing the judgment of the court of first instance. In particular, the appellate court did not verify
The appellate court did not thoroughly examine the arguments presented in the defender’s appeal, did not analyze them with sufficient completeness, and referred to the same circumstances and evidence that were contested by the defense. The appellate court did not verify whether the accused acted under conditions of extreme necessity, considering his participation in repelling armed aggression and proximity to the combat zone. Additionally, the appellate court supported the contradictory conclusions of the court of first instance, which recognized the receipt of ammunition as lawful and simultaneously unlawful, and did not adequately address the defender’s arguments regarding violations of the right to defense and the application of pressure by law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the appellate court justified its conclusions with testimonies given during the pre-trial investigation, contrary to Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 344/63/20 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for theft committed repeatedly, in especially large amounts, combined with trespassing into a dwelling.
2. The court of cassation left the judgment and ruling unchanged, as the courts of previous instances fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, in particular, the fingerprint of the convicted person at the crime scene, the victim’s belongings seized from the convicted person’s and his mother’s residence, as well as technical information confirming the convicted person’s presence near the crime scene at the time of its commission. The court of cassation noted that the defender’s arguments regarding the lack of evidence of guilt, falsification of evidence, and violation of the right to defense are unfounded and refuted by the case materials. The court of cassation emphasized that re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence. The court of cassation also noted that the courts of previous instances complied with the requirements of the criminal procedure law regarding the legality, validity, and motivation of court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defender’s cassation appeal and left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 640/30276/20 dated 05/19/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts as invalid and the recovery of amounts by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv Region from LLC “Kernel-Trade” and LLC “Prezenta Premium.”
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly examine the primary documents confirming the reality of economic transactions between the counterparties. The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive and objective examination of all evidence in its entirety to establish the actual circumstances of the case. Also, the courts did not take into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the proof of obsinvalidity of contracts and recovery of amounts. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the tax authority’s arguments regarding the absence of a business purpose in the disputed economic transactions. Given the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the decisions of the courts of previous instances should be overturned and the case should be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
Case No. 420/19337/23 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the termination of payment of monetary compensation to a serviceman for renting housing.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the serviceman’s claim, on the grounds that the courts had incorrectly applied the provisions of the Procedure for Payment of Monetary Compensation for Renting Housing, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, namely the provision that compensation is not paid if the serviceman has housing that meets the minimum standards defined by housing legislation. The court pointed out that the courts did not take into account the provisions of the Housing Code of Ukraine and local standards that determine the minimum living space per person, and did not assess whether the plaintiff’s housing meets these standards. The court also noted that the order to terminate the payment of compensation did not specify a specific reason for such termination, as required by the Procedure. Considering that in order to make a final decision in the case, it is necessary to clarify additional circumstances, in particular, whether the plaintiff’s housing is located at the place of service and whether there are other grounds for termination of payment of compensation, the court of cassation cannot independently establish these circumstances.
3. The court declared unlawful the order to terminate the payment of compensation and obliged the military unit to reconsider the issue of payment of compensation to the serviceman, taking into account the conclusions set forth in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court.
Case No. 308/9958/22 dated 14/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the acquittal of PERSON_7, accused of organizing the illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine and aiding and abetting the preparation of false official documents.
2. The court of cassation upheld the acquittal, as it agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding the inadmissibility of the evidence collected by the prosecution due to significant violations of the criminal procedural law, in particular: violation of the rules of jurisdiction when entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, issuing an instruction to conduct covert investigative actions by an unauthorized prosecutor, violations in the preparation of the protocol on the results of monitoring the commission of a crime, as well as the illegality of conducting an inspection of the scene without a ruling of the investigating judge.
ddi. The court also noted that the defendant’s refusal to admit guilt made it impossible to refer to the provocation of the crime by law enforcement agencies as a basis for acquittal. However, these violations were so significant that the court of cassation did not examine the arguments about provocation, as it could worsen the position of the acquitted person.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case №161/14551/22 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the acquittal of the director of LLC “Rich Pellets UA” PERSON_7, who was accused of facilitating the illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine and issuing knowingly false official documents (Part 2 of Article 332, Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court, upholding the acquittal, proceeded from the fact that the prosecution did not prove the existence of the elements of crimes in the actions of PERSON_7, in which she was accused. The court took into account that PERSON_7 sent letters to the regional military administration (RMA) regarding the reservation of conscripted drivers based on guarantees from foreign logistics companies, which assured her of the transportation of humanitarian cargo and the return of drivers to Ukraine. The court also took into account the testimony of witnesses, including a broker and the director of one of the logistics companies, who confirmed the fact of transportation of humanitarian cargo by these companies. The court noted that the prosecution did not provide evidence that the carrier companies were not engaged in the transportation of humanitarian cargo, and also did not prove the fact of forgery of letters from these companies. The court emphasized that no one, including PERSON_7, had been proven to know the maximum period of stay of the reserved persons abroad.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case №461/6132/23 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land sale agreement as a sham, recognition of the agreement as concluded between the plaintiff and the seller, and recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership of the land plot.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not prove that the sale agreement was a sham, i.e., concluded to conceal another transaction between the plaintiff and the seller. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the will of the parties was directed at establishing civil law relations other than those provided for in the sale agreement. The court also took into account that the plaintiff acted on the basis of a power of attorney from the seller, and within the scope of this power of attorney, concluded the sale agreement with the defendant. The court emphasized that it is not allowed to invalidate the agreement in the part of the party to the agreement, and Article 235 of the Civil Code of Ukraine cannot be the basis for recognizing a transaction as a sham in the part of the party. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances.
having indicated that they correctly applied the norms of substantive law and did not allow violations of the norms of procedural 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. 953/1541/22 dated 19/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal regarding the referral of criminal proceedings on charges of PERSON_6 and PERSON_7 of committing robbery (Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) with appeals from various participants in the proceedings to another court of appeal instance.
The Supreme Court, satisfying the submission of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal, was guided by Articles 34, 376, 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that there are circumstances that make it impossible for the Kharkiv Court of Appeal to hear the case, and to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the court hearing, it is necessary to transfer the case to another court of appeal. The specific reasons why the Kharkiv Court of Appeal cannot hear the case are not specified in the operative part, but it can be assumed that there are circumstances that cast doubt on the impartiality of the court. The decision to transfer the case to the Poltava Court of Appeal was made to ensure the right to a fair trial. This decision is in line with the practice of the Supreme Court regarding ensuring objective and impartial consideration of cases.
The court ruled to satisfy the submission of the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and send the materials of the criminal proceedings to the Poltava Court of Appeal.
Case No. 363/2885/21 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the land sale agreement as fictitious, the recognition of the agreement as concluded between the plaintiff and the seller, and the recognition of the ownership right to the land for the plaintiff.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not prove that the sale agreement was fictitious, that is, concluded to conceal another transaction, namely the sale between the plaintiff and the seller. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the will of the parties was aimed at establishing civil law relations other than those provided for in the disputed agreement. The court also emphasized that it is not allowed to recognize a transaction as fictitious in the part of the party to the agreement, as this contradicts the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the plaintiff acted on the basis of a power of attorney from the seller, and within the scope of this power of attorney, a sale agreement was concluded with the defendant. The court also noted 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 does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence.
3. The court left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.
Case No. 752/21713/2**Case № 3 of 15/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the applicant’s right to appeal the investigating judge’s ruling on the refusal to satisfy the complaint against the decision to close the criminal proceedings through a representative (lawyer).
2. The appellate court returned the appeal filed by the lawyer on behalf of the applicant, arguing that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) does not provide for the applicant’s right to have a representative to appeal such decisions. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, noting that although Article 60 of the CPC does not directly provide for the applicant’s right to have a representative, the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantee the right to professional legal assistance and a fair trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court did not take into account the general principles of criminal proceedings, such as the rule of law, access to justice, and ensuring the right to appeal procedural decisions, which is a material violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court also drew attention to the fact that the appeal was filed in the interests of two persons, but the appellate court mentioned only one person.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
**Case № 904/685/24 of 20/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties under a supply agreement between Joint Stock Company “Ukrgasvydobuvannya” and Limited Liability Company “Interpipe Niko Tube” in the amount of UAH 124,830,886.71.
The Supreme Court, partially satisfying the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the previous instances. The judges pointed out the need for a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the case, in particular, the terms of the supply agreement, evidence of breach of obligations, and the validity of the calculation of penalties. Also, the court of first instance must properly assess the parties’ arguments regarding the existence or absence of grounds for exemption from liability for breach of contractual obligations. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of adversarial proceedings and ensuring the right of each party to a fair trial.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
**Case № 464/5772/24 of 14/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal acquisition, possession of a psychotropic substance without the purpose of distribution in large quantities).
The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, agreed with the decisions of the previous instances regarding the conviction of PERSON_7, but drew attention to the inaccuracy in the qualification of his actions. The court noted
that the reference to “illegal acquisition, storage of a psychotropic substance without the purpose of trafficking in large quantities” as a qualifying element under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is superfluous. The Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to exclude this qualifying element from the reasoning parts of court decisions, as it does not affect the correct application of the article, but may cause ambiguous interpretation. The court of cassation emphasized that the exclusion of this element does not change the essence of the accusation and the punishment imposed on the convicted person. Thus, the Supreme Court pointed out the need for a more precise wording of the accusation in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.
The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the defense lawyer, but changed the verdicts of the courts of previous instances, excluding references to the qualifying element from the reasoning parts.
Case No. 320/13541/24 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The court of cassation supported the decisions of the courts of previous instances, based on the fact that the obligation to register tax invoices is a tax obligation of the taxpayer, which did not change during the quarantine or martial law. The court noted that the moratorium on the application of penalties was in effect until May 26, 2022, and from May 27, 2022, exemption from liability depends on confirmation of the impossibility of fulfilling the obligation. The reduced amounts of penalties introduced by Law No. 2876-IX do not have retroactive effect and apply only to tax invoices issued after the entry into force of this law, or to those whose registration period had not expired at that time. The court also took into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of paragraph 11 of subsection 10 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine, according to which the amount of penalties depends on the composition of the offense, namely, which norm establishes the deadline for registering a tax invoice.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 202/13244/23 dated May 14, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment for illegal acquisition and storage of a psychotropic substance in large quantities (Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court violated the requirements of the criminal procedure law, namely: unjustifiably failed to take into account the mitigating circumstances (sincere repentance and active assistance in solving the crime) established by the court of first instance and not disputed by the prosecutor during the consideration of the case under Part 3 of Article 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court had no right to question the sincerity of the convicted person’s repentance, since
and the prosecutor did not challenge this circumstance in the appeal. The cassation court also noted that the appellate court did not comply with the requirements of Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the legality, validity, and reasoning of the verdict. The cassation court emphasized that the conclusions of the appellate court contradict the requirements of the criminal procedure law, which limit the possibility of appealing circumstances agreed upon by the participants in the trial.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s verdict and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance.
Case No. 727/13901/23 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the amount of compensation for material damage related to the temporary disability of the victim as a result of a traffic accident caused by a person under the influence of alcohol.
2. The cassation court, when considering the cassation appeal of the representative of the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU), found that the courts of previous instances incorrectly calculated the amount of compensation for damage related to the temporary disability of the victim. The courts of the first and appellate instances, in determining the amount of compensation, proceeded from the amount of the minimum wage for the entire month, without taking into account the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 25 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Owners of Land Vehicles,” according to which, if a person was in the status of unemployed for less than the calculated terms, the average monthly income is taken into account based on the amount of the total income of such person for the calendar year preceding the occurrence of the insured event and the income during the actual term (full months) of the person’s stay in the specified status. The Supreme Court noted that the courts did not take into account that the victim was undergoing treatment for only 8 working days, not a full month. The cassation court also indicated that the issues of compensation for damage related to temporary disability were resolved incorrectly, which contradicts the established judicial practice formed by the courts of civil jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the MTIBU, amended the decisions of the previous courts regarding the amount of compensation for damage related to temporary disability, and reduced the amount to be recovered from the MTIBU in favor of the victim.
Case No. 947/4175/20 dated 05/20/2025
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under loan agreements concluded between a Turkish citizen and an individual.
The appellate court granted the claim because the plaintiff provided loan agreements and receipts confirming the defendant’s debt obligations, and the originals of the documents were examined in court; the defendant did not provide evidence that he did not sign the agreements and did not receive the funds, and also did not refute the debt calculation. The court took into account that the defendant did not provide sufficient samples offor conducting a handwriting examination, and therefore did not refute the fact of signing the contracts and receiving funds. The appellate court reasonably considered that the plaintiff proved the fact of concluding loan agreements and the defendant’s failure to fulfill obligations to return the funds, and the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to refute these circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, emphasizing that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 554/7540/23 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of certificates of ownership of an apartment as invalid, the cancellation of the decision on state registration of rights, and the recognition of ownership of the apartment as the personal private property of the plaintiff.
2. The court of cassation established that for the issuance of certificates of ownership of a share in the joint property of spouses, persons must provide the notary with evidence of ownership of the property and irrefutable evidence that the property belongs to the spouses by right of joint common ownership. The appellate court did not take into account that state registration of rights is not the basis for acquiring ownership, but only certifies the already acquired right. The court did not verify the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the absence of the executive committee’s decision specified in the certificate of ownership, and did not pay attention to the significant increase in the area of the apartment during the marriage, which could have affected its determination as joint common property. The previous courts did not properly verify the arguments of the parties and did not examine the collected evidence, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case.
3. The decision of the court of first instance and the постанову [ruling] of the appellate court were cancelled, and the case was sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 140/10477/23 dated 05/20/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the demand of the Department of the Western Office of the State Audit Service in the Volyn region.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Department of the Western Office of the State Audit Service in the Volyn region, cancelling the постанову [ruling] of the appellate court and upholding the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation, presumably, agreed with the defendant’s arguments regarding the legality of the issued demand, possibly due to identified violations or shortcomings in the activities of the plaintiffs, which fall under the control of the State Audit Service. In making the decision, the court presumably took into account the circumstances of the case, previous court decisions, and regulations governing the activities of the State Audit Service and its supervised entities. It is important that the court of cassation supported the decision of the court of first instance, which may indicate the validity of the initial assessment of the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties. Also, the court of cassation could have disagreed with the conclusions of the appellate court
regarding the incorrect application of substantive or procedural law.
The court of cassation reversed the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 444/1079/23 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s ruling regarding the sentence of PERSON_6, convicted of illegal logging and possession of ammunition.
2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not properly verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the incorrect determination by the local court of the start date of PERSON_6’s sentence, as the court of first instance erroneously included in the final sentence the time when the convict was serving a sentence under a previous verdict, which contradicts the provisions of Article 71 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The appellate court failed to consider that the temporary stay of PERSON_6 in a penal institution to participate in the court proceedings cannot be considered as serving a sentence under a new verdict. In addition, the appellate court did not refute the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to determine the start date of the sentence from the date of the new verdict, as until that moment PERSON_6 was serving a sentence under a previous verdict. As a result, the appellate court failed to ensure the legality and validity of the court decision, which is a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 904/3472/23 (910/9239/23) dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the bank in favor of the company of lease payments paid as part of the reimbursement of the value of the leased asset, in connection with the termination of the financial lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that the financial lease agreement is mixed, combining elements of lease and sale, and the lease payments include a fee for the use of the property and part of the purchase price. Since the agreement was terminated and the property was returned to the lessor, the latter has no obligation to transfer ownership of the property to the lessee, and accordingly, it has no right to demand payment for it. The court also emphasized the imperative nature of paragraph 2 of Article 693 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which provides for the buyer’s right to demand the return of funds paid if the goods have not been transferred into ownership. The court rejected the bank’s reference to an additional agreement that prohibited the return of lease payments, as it contradicts the imperative norms of the law. The court took into account previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which concern the analysis of the terms of the agreement and the structure of lease payments when resolving the issue of debt.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the recovery of lease payments in favor of the company.
**Case No. 911/2308/23 (369/4028/23) dated 20/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of measures to secure a claim in a case on debt collection, which was dismissed due to the opening of proceedings in the case of the debtor’s insolvency.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and granted the motion to cancel the measures to secure the claim, since the claim was dismissed, and therefore, there was no need to secure the claim; the court noted that the dismissal of the claim terminates the consideration of the dispute between the parties, which makes it impossible to make a court decision on the merits of the dispute regarding the satisfaction of the claim, and the measures to secure the claim cannot exist separately from the claim proceedings; the court also took into account that in the case of insolvency, measures have already been taken to secure the creditors’ claims, in particular, a ban on the debtor from alienating property. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the appellant that the dispute did not cease, but only the procedure for its resolution changed, since securing the claim in the claim proceedings and securing the creditors’ claims in the bankruptcy case are different institutions. The court also explained that until the status of a creditor is acquired in the insolvency case, the appellant does not have the right to petition for measures to secure the creditors’ claims.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision to cancel the measures to secure the claim – without changes.
**Case No. 631/268/24 dated 12/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on the convicted PERSON_7 for committing intentional homicide in order to conceal another crime and illegal imprisonment.
2. The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance in the part of the punishment for intentional homicide, referring to the fact that the local court did not take into account the previous convictions of PERSON_7 for similar crimes, as well as the circumstances of the crime committed in the presence of the victim’s niece. The court of appeal emphasized that PERSON_7 poses a serious threat to society, and less severe measures of punishment will not be able to ensure the protection of society and justice. The court took into account that the crime was committed shortly after serving the sentence for previous crimes. The court also took into account that the victim’s niece was present during the murder, which indicates the particular audacity of the crime. As a result, the appellate court sentenced PERSON_7 to life imprisonment, considering it necessary to correct the convicted person and prevent new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel.
**Case No. 160/9787/23 dated 19/05/20**
25
The subject of dispute in this case is the appeal by “Agrofirma “Skhid Agro” LLC against the tax assessment notice issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
The Supreme Court partially granted the tax authority’s cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instances, but upheld them in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim. The court of cassation, presumably, disagreed with the arguments of the courts of first and appellate instances, but agreed with the final conclusion on the illegality of the tax assessment notice. This may be due to different interpretations of tax law or different assessments of the evidence in the case. The court may have concluded that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law, but incorrectly stated the reasons for their decision.
The court of cassation ruled to amend the decisions of the previous instances, stating their reasoning part in a new wording, but to leave the court decisions unchanged in the rest.
Case No. 160/9787/23 dated 19/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax assessment notice by which “Agrofirma “Skhid Agro” LLC was additionally charged with corporate income tax of foreign legal entities and штрафні санкції штрафні санкції were applied.
2. The court of cassation partially granted the tax authority’s cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous instances only in the part of the motives. The court emphasized that at the time of the audit, martial law restrictions were in effect, but the audit on the taxation of non-residents’ income was permitted. At the same time, the court supported the conclusions of the courts of previous instances regarding procedural violations in the appointment of the audit, in particular, inadequate justification of the grounds for its conduct in the request to the taxpayer and an error in the name of the non-resident company in the order for the audit. The court noted that these procedural violations are an independent basis for canceling the tax assessment notice, regardless of the essence of the identified violations of tax law. The court also noted that the courts of previous instances should not have proceeded to verify the grounds of the claim on the merits of the violations of tax and/or other legislation established during the audit, and accordingly, should not have made conclusions on the merits of such violations.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances regarding the cancellation of the tax assessment notice, but amended their reasoning part.
Case No. 911/3162/24 dated 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the decision to contribute immovable property to the authorized capital and the recovery of jointly owned property of spouses from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal against the appellate court’s ruling, which overturned the first instance court’s ruling on the return of the statement of claim to the plaintiff due to failure to remedy the defects.
The appellate court decided that the postal item referred to by the court of first instance could not contain the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without motion, since the ruling had not yet been published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at the time of dispatch. The court of cassation disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the date of publication of a court decision in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions is not decisive for establishing the fact of delivery of this decision to a party to the case, since the list of cases that confirm the date of delivery of a court decision is clearly defined in Article 242 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and does not include the date of publication in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. At the same time, the court of cassation agreed that the appellate court made the correct decision to overturn the ruling of the court of first instance, since the case file did not contain proper evidence of the plaintiff’s receipt of the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without motion.
3. The court of cassation decided to amend the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, leaving the rest of the ruling unchanged.
Case No. 120/4525/23 dated May 20, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the Ukrtransbezpeka’s (State Service of Ukraine for Transport Safety) decision on imposing an administrative-economic fine on Kompaniya-Budinvest LLC for violating the requirements of legislation on road transport.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, noting that Ukrtransbezpeka properly notified Kompaniya-Budinvest LLC of the time and place of the case hearing, and the plaintiff’s failure to receive the notification in time is not the fault of the defendant. The court emphasized that the road carrier, not the vehicle owner, is responsible for violating the legislation on road transport, and in this case, Kompaniya-Budinvest LLC acted as the carrier, which is confirmed by the consignment note. The court also noted that the vehicle lease agreement referred to by the plaintiff is not sufficient evidence of the transfer of carrier functions to another person, as no evidence of the actual execution of this agreement was provided. The court took into account that at the time of the inspection, the driver provided documents where Kompaniya-Budinvest LLC was indicated as the carrier, which is a determining factor in this situation. The court of cassation emphasized that the absence of a company representative during the case hearing is not a ground for overturning the decision, as the company is not deprived of the right to appeal it in court.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts and dismissed the claim of Kompaniya-Budinvest LLC.
Case No. 688/3488/24 dated May 15, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance in the criminal proceedings against PERSON_6 under Part 3 of Article 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the attorney, overturning the appellate court’s ruling on the return.
Return of the appeal. The court of cassation did not specify the specific motives for the decision in the operative part, however, it is obvious that violations of the norms of procedural law by the appellate court were established during the return of the complaint. At the same time, the Supreme Court of Ukraine scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal, which indicates the need for a re-examination of the appeal on the merits, taking into account the circumstances established by the cassation court. This means that the appellate court must re-check the legality and validity of the judgment of the court of first instance, taking into account the arguments set forth in the appeal.
The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case No. 727/13901/23 dated 05/15/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is compensation for damage related to temporary disability, within the framework of criminal proceedings accusing a person of violating traffic safety rules.
2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal of the representative of the Motor (Transport) Insurance Bureau of Ukraine (MTIBU), found that the courts of previous instances incorrectly determined the person responsible for compensating the damage related to the temporary disability of the victim. The court took into account that, according to current legislation, it is the MTIBU that is responsible for compensating such damage in cases stipulated by law. The court also took into account the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the cassation appeal, which indicated that the MTIBU is the proper defendant in this part of the civil claim. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to change the decisions of the previous instances in terms of resolving the civil claim.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the MTIBU representative, amending the decisions of the previous instances and recovering the amount of compensation from the MTIBU in favor of the victim.
Case No. 203/1612/22 dated 05/20/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the verdicts of the court of first instance and the appellate instance regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service).
2. The Supreme Court granted the convicted person’s cassation appeal, overturned the previous court decisions and released PERSON_7 from criminal liability on the basis of Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, closing the criminal proceedings. The court based its decision on the fact that at the time of the case’s consideration in the cassation procedure, the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability established by Article 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine had expired. The court took into account that a significant amount of time had passed since the commission of the crime, and the state had lost interest in bringing the person to justice. Also, the court took into account the positive characterization of PERSON_7 and his willingness to return to military service. The court ordered PERSON_7 to immediately report to the military unit to continue service and obliged
him to service.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgments of the previous instances and released PERSON_7 from criminal liability, closing the criminal proceedings.
Case No. 752/20521/23 dated 15/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the term for appealing the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the convicted person was aware of the date of the judgment’s pronouncement, participated in court hearings, and also received a copy of the judgment on the day of its pronouncement, which is confirmed by his receipt. The Supreme Court emphasized that a person who wishes to file an appeal must act in good faith to exercise their right, and valid reasons for missing the deadline are circumstances that were objectively insurmountable. The court also noted that the entry of a defense attorney into the case after the expiration of the deadline for appeal is not a sufficient basis for reinstating this deadline, as it violates the principle of legal certainty. The court of cassation indicated that the convicted person’s failure to appear for the pronouncement of the judgment does not negate the fact that he received a copy of this decision, and the defense attorney’s arguments do not contain objective circumstances that would have prevented the timely filing of an appeal.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 911/973/24 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a coal supply agreement, calculated taking into account the change in exchange rates.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the terms of the supply agreement and the specifications to it, in particular, did not pay attention to the fact that the price of coal was fixed in the national currency, and a change in price is possible only with the agreement of the parties, formalized in the form of an additional agreement or a new specification. The courts did not establish whether such an agreement was reached between the parties regarding the change in price due to the change in exchange rates. In addition, the court noted that the courts did not take into account the contradictory behavior of the plaintiff, who determined the amount of the principal debt taking into account the exchange rate difference, and calculated the penalties without taking it into account. Also, the court indicated that the appellate court mistakenly believed that it did not have the right to reduce the amount of 3% per annum, accrued on the amount of the debt, since the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court allows the possibility of reducing the amount of annual interest under certain circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/7747/24 dated 13/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the unilateral legal transaction of the Municipal Enterprise “Kyivtransparkservice” on the early termination of the agreemwith individual entrepreneur Chyhyrii Dmytro Ivanovych regarding the provision of a parking area.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court erroneously concluded that the additional agreement was not concluded, as it did not examine all the evidence and arguments of the parties, in particular, it did not take into account the presence of a signature on behalf of the first deputy director of KP “Kyivtransparkservice” on the copy of the additional agreement, which indicates the expression of will of the person who signed it. The appellate court did not examine the evidence that would substantiate the lack of authority of the first deputy director to sign the agreement, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff, although it was the defendant who had to prove the absence of such authority. The court did not take into account that a transaction performed by a representative exceeding their authority may be approved by the legal entity they represent, and in such case, creates obligations for it. Also, the court did not take into account that for признання invalid a contract concluded by a legal entity with a third party, on the basis of a violation of the restriction of the representative’s authority, it is necessary to establish the bad faith of the third party, who knew or should have known about such restrictions. In addition, the court did not examine the issue of the nullity of the lease agreement for communal property due to the lack of notarial certification, if the term of the agreement exceeds five years, as provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property”.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
Case No. 991/2568/25 dated 05/15/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s motion for securing a claim in a case regarding the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery to the state revenue.
The appellate chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to seize the defendant’s property, namely a car, an apartment, and a non-residential premise, as well as prohibiting actions regarding the registration of the place of residence of minors in the apartment. The court of appeal noted that the seizure was imposed reasonably, as there is a risk of alienation of property, which may complicate the execution of the court decision in the future. The court also took into account that the seizure does not restrict the right of owners and members of their families to use the property. The arguments of the appeal regarding the violation of the rights of a minor child, the lack of valuation of the property, and the non-payment of court fees were rejected, as the court considers that the available evidence confirms the value of the property, and the prosecutor is exempt from paying court fees in such cases.
The court upheld the decision of the court of first instance.
Case No. 185/3086/16-к dated 05/06/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict and decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for receiving undue advantage for influencing the decision-making by a person authorized to perform state functions.
