Case №991/2939/22 dated 27/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of embezzlement of especially valuable state-owned lands of a state enterprise by abusing official position and issuing deliberately false documents.
2. The court, when considering the case, established that PERSON_8, abusing his official position, issued orders to transfer especially valuable lands to private ownership, acting in collusion with PERSON_14, who provided false information about the lands. It is important that the lands of the State Enterprise “DH “Bohonitske” were especially valuable and were to be used for research and educational purposes, and the bodies of the StateGeoCadastre are not authorized to dispose of such lands. The court examined numerous documents, testimonies of witnesses, and expert opinions in order to establish the circumstances of the case, and rejected the arguments of PERSON_8 that he acted in the interests of the state, in particular, by providing land plots to ATO participants. Proceedings against PERSON_14 were continued at the request of the mother for the purpose of rehabilitation, but were closed due to his death.
3. The court found PERSON_8 guilty under Part 5 of Article 191 and Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and closed the criminal proceedings against PERSON_14 due to his death.
Case №140/6769/24 dated 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against a tax notification-decision on the application of penalties for violation of the requirements for conducting settlement operations.
2. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal, confirming the legitimacy of the penalties, limited itself to a formal comparison of the time of receipt of funds according to bank statements and the time of creation of settlement documents, without properly examining the fact of issuing settlement documents to buyers when transferring goods or services to them, which is a key circumstance for establishing a violation. The court noted that the current legislation defines the transfer of goods or the provision of services as decisive for the obligation to issue a settlement document, and not only the technical discrepancy between the time of payment and the creation of documents. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the controlling authority must establish the existence of an objective element of the offense – the inaction of the business entity in the form of failure to issue a check, failure to conduct an operation, etc., and the discrepancy between the time of crediting money and the time of creating settlement documents does not in itself indicate the existence of circumstances that create the elements of an offense.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case №440/4297/24 dated 27/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the actions and decisions of the Pension Fund regarding the refusal to recalculate the plaintiff’s pension.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings in the case, since the decision
The decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Ternopil region, which the plaintiff challenged, was canceled by a court decision in another case that became legally binding; this is the basis for closing the proceedings in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court also noted that the other claims are derivative of the main one, and the closure of proceedings on the main claims entails the closure of proceedings on the derivative claims as well. The cassation court emphasized that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of procedural law and came to a reasonable conclusion about the existence of grounds for closing the proceedings in the case. The arguments of the cassation appeal do not disprove the correctness of these conclusions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case №953/9454/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of two minor children after the divorce of their parents.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, partially satisfied the father’s initial claim, determining the place of residence of the older son with the father, and the place of residence of the younger son alternately with each of the parents, applying the model of joint physical custody, based on the best interests of the child, who, in the opinion of the court, needs maternal care and love. The cassation court did not agree with this decision, pointing out that the courts of previous instances did not clarify important circumstances, in particular, the wishes of each of the parents regarding the child’s alternate residence, their time and opportunities for proper care, and did not investigate the possible negative impact of alternating residence on the child. In addition, the cassation court noted that the guardianship authority did not highlight in its opinion the possibility and expediency of applying joint physical custody. The cassation court emphasized that when deciding on joint physical custody, the courts must take into account the wishes of each of the parents, the existence of stable relations with the child, the absence of circumstances that threaten the interests of the child, and other important factors.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part concerning the determination of the place of residence of the younger son and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case №757/10342/22-ц dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 against state bodies for compensation for moral and material damage caused, as the plaintiffs claim, by their illegal inaction during the pre-trial investigation.
2. The cassation court found that the appellate court did not fully determine the subject matter and grounds of the claim, since the plaintiffs claimed that they suffered damage as a result of non-execution of 16 court decisions, and the appellate court did not verify the arguments that
to the non-execution of all these decisions and did not assess the actions of the defendants in other criminal proceedings. The court noted that in order to impose liability on the state, a combination of three conditions is necessary: illegality of the body’s actions, the existence of damage, and a causal connection between the actions and the damage, which the plaintiff must prove. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not establish the circumstances and consequences of the execution of all 16 court decisions referred to by the plaintiffs, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 757/40871/20 dated 05/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the distribution of court costs between the parties after the annulment of the decision of the court of first instance and the partial satisfaction of the claim in the appellate instance.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which partially granted the application for the distribution of court costs, recovering from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff part of the paid court fee in proportion to the satisfied part of the claim. The appellate court refused to award the costs of professional legal assistance, as the plaintiff did not provide evidence of these costs before the end of the court debates and did not justify the validity of the reasons that prevented him from doing so in a timely manner. The court of cassation emphasized that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of objective obstacles to submitting evidence regarding the costs of legal assistance before the end of the debates in the appellate court. Also, the court of cassation noted that the issue of recovering the court fee paid by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant can be resolved in the procedure provided for in the second part of Article 444 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the additional ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal remained unchanged.
Case No. 148/949/21 dated 05/28/2025
The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules that resulted in the death of the victim or grievous bodily harm).
The Supreme Court partially granted the convicted person’s cassation appeal, amending the decision of the appellate court regarding the imposed punishment. The court found the convicted person guilty under Part 2 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and imposed a punishment of 5 years of imprisonment with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 2 years. However, on the basis of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the court released the convicted person from serving the main sentence with probation, establishing a probationary period of 3 years. Also, the convicted person was assigned the duties of periodically appearing for registration at the authorized body on probation issues and informing this body about changes in place of residence or work. The cassation court
of cassation instance, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the convicted person, concluded that his correction is possible without actual imprisonment.
The court amended the decision of the appellate court regarding the punishment, imposing a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
Case No. 572/774/20 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s verdict regarding a person convicted of intentional grievous bodily harm that resulted in the death of the victim.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, substantiated the guilt of the person with the testimony of witnesses, protocols of the scene examination and the body, video recordings from the scene, and conclusions of forensic medical examinations, which confirmed the infliction of grievous bodily harm on the victim, which led to death. The court took into account the testimony of a witness who saw the infliction of blows, the conclusions of examinations regarding the detection of the victim’s blood on the convict’s clothing, as well as video recordings that captured the beating. The court rejected the defendant’s testimony about his non-involvement in the crime, as they were disproved by the totality of other evidence. The appellate court further noted that the absence of the criminal proceedings number in the protocol of the scene examination does not make it an inadmissible piece of evidence, as this is not a mandatory detail. The appellate court also took into account the voluntary transfer of video recordings by the owner of the territory where the crime occurred. The court of cassation instance confirmed that the courts of previous instances properly examined and evaluated the evidence, complying with the requirements of the criminal procedure law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 127/12357/21 dated 05/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict, by which PERSON_7 was convicted under Part 2 of Art. 307 of the Criminal Code (illegal acquisition and storage for the purpose of selling psychotropic substances in large quantities).
2. The appellate court overturned the verdict of the court of first instance, which qualified the actions of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Art. 309 of the Criminal Code (illegal storage of psychotropic substances without the purpose of selling), motivating this by the fact that PERSON_7 acquired and stored amphetamine for the purpose of selling, as evidenced by his initial explanations, the testimony of a witness, the large size of the seized substance, its packaging, and the absence of official sources of income for the convicted person. The Supreme Court did not agree with this decision, as the appellate court did not take into account the arguments of the defense about the fact that PERSON_7 is drug-dependent and acquired amphetamine for his own needs, and also did not refute the version that the initial explanations were given under the influence of narcotic substances and from the words of police officers. In addition, the appellate court did not ascertain whether there were any circumstances that could have induced the convicted person to self-incrimination, and prematurely qualified the actions of PERSON_7 as repeated, referring to another criminal proceeding in which there was not yet aA verdict that has entered into legal force has been rendered. The Supreme Court emphasized that to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not enough for the prosecution’s version to be merely more probable than the defense’s version.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s judgment and ordered a new trial in the appellate court.
Case No. 161/16879/23 of 21/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_6 against the judgment of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (domestic violence).
2. Unfortunately, the provided text contains only the operative part of the Supreme Court’s decision, so it is impossible to establish the arguments that the court used when making the decision. The operative part does not contain any motives or justifications for the decision. It can only be assumed that the court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances regarding the proof of PERSON_6’s guilt in committing domestic violence, but a full text of the decision is necessary for an accurate analysis.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the local court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_6, and dismissed his cassation appeal.
Case No. 990/212/23 of 28/05/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine in part.
In the decision, the court noted that the President of Ukraine acted on the basis, within the limits of authority, and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, in particular, the Law of Ukraine “On the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.” The court took into account that the challenged decree was issued on the basis of a decision of the National Security and Defense Council, which, in turn, was based on information provided by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). The court emphasized the discretionary powers of the President in matters of national security and defense, and also that the courts should not replace state authorities in assessing risks and threats to national security. Also, the court took into account the reasonableness and proportionality of the applied measures aimed at protecting the national security of Ukraine. The court proceeded from the fact that restrictions on the rights and freedoms of a person and citizen established by law are permissible if such restrictions are reasonable and proportionate.
The court decided to deny the plaintiff’s claims in full.
Case No. 800/365/17 of 28/05/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal by an individual against the Decree of the President of Ukraine on the enactment of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council regarding the application of personal sanctions.
The decision does not provide the court’s arguments.
The court dismissed the claim to invalidate and cancel the Decree of the President of Ukraine in the part concerning the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff.
Case No. 380/19287/23 of 28/05/2025
1. The subject
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal of the State Institution “Territorial Medical Association of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Lviv Region” to amend the certificate on the amount of monetary allowance of PERSON_1 as of 01.01.2021 regarding the amount of allowance for peculiarities of service and bonuses.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the courts did not investigate the average amount of allowance for peculiarities of service and bonuses that were actually paid for the corresponding position (or a position equated to the plaintiff’s position) as of 01.01.2021, which is important for the correct resolution of the case. The court emphasized that the approach of indicating different percentage indicators of allowance for peculiarities of service and bonuses for career military personnel and pensioners in certificates is illegal. The court also referred to the legal position stated in the decision of the Supreme Court of 05.03.2024 in the model case No. 380/19324/23, according to which such monthly payments as allowance for peculiarities of service and bonuses should be indicated in the relevant certificates on the amount of monetary allowance in the average amounts actually paid for the month in which the right to recalculate the pension arose for the corresponding position. The court pointed out the need to establish all the actual circumstances of the case that are relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute, and the obligation of the court to actively clarify these circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 161/2621/24 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of cohabitation without registration of marriage and the recovery of monetary compensation of 1/2 part of the sold joint property of the spouses.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, which established that the parties jointly built a house on a land plot purchased by the defendant before the marriage during the marriage, which gives the plaintiff the right to 1/2 of the value of this property, despite the fact that he gave consent to the sale of the property by his ex-wife. The court noted that the defendant’s actions regarding the sale of joint property without transferring the plaintiff’s part of the funds are dishonest. Also, the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the norms of the Family Code, since the dispute was resolved on the basis of an assessment of all the evidence and circumstances of the case. The court took into account the value of the car left for the plaintiff’s use when calculating the amount of compensation, since the defendant did not object to this fact.
3. The cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 337/5468/24 dated 05/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of arrears in payment of contributions for the maintenance of an apartment building.
regarding the maintenance of the building and the adjacent territory from an individual entrepreneur.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which separated the claims, since part of the claims concerned the debt arising in connection with the possession of a non-residential premise used by the defendant for conducting business activities as an individual entrepreneur. The court emphasized that the decisive factor is that the defendant acts as a business entity in the disputed legal relations, and the legal relations themselves are of an economic nature, since they are related to the maintenance of property used for entrepreneurial activity. The court took into account that from the moment of state registration of an individual entrepreneur, an individual is actually in two legal statuses – as an individual and as an individual entrepreneur, and the presence of the status of an entrepreneur does not mean that a person acts as an entrepreneur in all legal relations, but in this case, the dispute arose precisely in connection with economic activity. The court also noted that cases in which one of the parties is an individual entrepreneur, and the dispute is related to their entrepreneurial activity, are subject to consideration in the commercial court. The court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal that the owner of the premises is an individual, since the dispute arose in connection with non-payment of contributions for the non-residential premises used for entrepreneurial activity.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 227/4459/21 dated 05/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the private notary’s entry on the removal of the encumbrance from the vehicle and the recognition of the invalidity of the purchase and sale agreement for this vehicle.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of forgery of the application for removal of the encumbrance from the car, on the basis of which the notary removed the corresponding entry from the State Register of Encumbrances on Movable Property. The court also noted that at the time of the conclusion of the car purchase and sale agreement, there were no encumbrances in the register, which allows the buyer to be considered a bona fide purchaser who did not know and could not know about the existence of encumbrances. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not prove that the buyer knew about the existence of a pledge or other encumbrances on the car. Also, the court noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to recover the debt from the defendant at the expense of other property or funds. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate the evidence that was examined by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 278/260/22 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal against the appellate court’s verdict regarding a person accused of committing crimes under Part.
Article 152, Part 1 of Article 301, Part 1 of Article 301-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the convicted person, his defense counsel, and the victim, amending the appellate court’s verdict regarding the imposed sentence. The court reclassified the convicted person’s actions from Part 3 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code to Part 1 of Article 155 of the Criminal Code, imposing a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term for each crime. The final sentence was determined by absorbing the less severe punishment into the more severe one. The court applied Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, releasing the convicted person from serving the principal sentence with probation, setting a probationary period, and imposing certain obligations on him. The convicted person was released from custody.
The court decided to amend the appellate court’s verdict regarding the sentence, reclassifying the crime and applying release from serving the sentence with probation.
Case No. 686/23031/23 dated May 29, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of ownership of a share in a residential building acquired during cohabitation without marriage registration.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, noting that in order to recognize a person’s ownership of property acquired during cohabitation without marriage before 2004, it is necessary to prove their direct participation in the acquisition of this property, and the mere fact of cohabitation is insufficient. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of her participation in the construction of the house, and the certificates of cohabitation were signed by an unauthorized person. Also, the court took into account that at the time of the construction of the house, the plaintiff was in another registered marriage. The court emphasized that establishing the fact of maintaining a common household, daily life, and budget is a necessary condition for recognizing ownership of the disputed property. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 755/4946/24 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of an additional term for filing an application for acceptance of inheritance by law.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence confirming objective, insurmountable, and significant difficulties that prevented her from filing an application for acceptance of inheritance within the six-month period established by law. The court noted that the plaintiff and the testator living in different settlements, the lack of communication between them, unawareness of the father’s death until a certain point, as well as the lack of a mobile phone and skills in using modern technology, are not valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff had the opportunity to file an application for acceptance of inheritance by mail. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not d
established the existence of significant obstacles that would have made it impossible for her to communicate with her father and other relatives during his lifetime. The court also took into account that the plaintiff was not deprived of the opportunity to file an application for acceptance of the inheritance by mail within six months from the moment of the opening of the inheritance.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.
Case No. 686/13148/21 dated 05/07/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of property as jointly acquired property of spouses, and recognition of the right of ownership to a share in the property.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence to confirm the fact of living as one family with the deceased man during the period when she was in another registered marriage, which contradicts the provisions of the Family Code of Ukraine, which allows simultaneous existence in only one marriage; in addition, the court noted that the doctor’s letter alone is not sufficient evidence to confirm established relations inherent in spouses. At the same time, considering the issue of recovering expenses for professional legal assistance, the Supreme Court indicated that not all expenses declared by the party are subject to reimbursement, in particular, the costs of an attorney’s business trip are not expenses for professional legal assistance, and the amount of the fee must meet the criteria of reality and reasonableness, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. The court of cassation, taking into account these circumstances, reduced the amount to be recovered for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the additional ruling of the appellate court regarding the reduction of the amount of reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, and in other respects left the court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 161/4484/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the defendants to restore the destroyed fence between the land plots of the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since the plaintiff was not properly notified of the court hearings, which is a violation of his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Articles 128-130, 372 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine; the courts of previous instances did not take into account that notification of court hearings by SMS messages is possible only if there is a corresponding written application from the party to the case, which was not in the case file; the appellate court did not pay attention to these violations, leaving the decision of the court of first instance unchanged; the cassation court also overturned the ruling of the appellate court refusing to recover
regarding legal aid expenses, as the issue of court costs allocation should be resolved after the case is considered on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 176/1609/23 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of moral damages from a state enterprise.
2. The court of cassation established that the dispute arose in connection with an appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer in consolidated enforcement proceedings, which combine the execution of court decisions of different jurisdictions. The Supreme Court emphasized that such disputes are subject to consideration in the order of administrative proceedings, and not civil proceedings. The court took into account that the consolidated enforcement proceedings include decisions made under the rules of economic jurisdiction, which excludes consideration of the complaint in the order of civil proceedings. The court also referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which defines administrative jurisdiction for disputes regarding appeals against the actions of the enforcement officer in consolidated proceedings with different jurisdictions. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take these circumstances into account and mistakenly considered the case in the order of civil proceedings. The court also noted that it verifies the courts’ compliance with the rules of jurisdiction regardless of the arguments of the cassation appeal.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, indicating the need to consider the case in an administrative court.
Case No. 686/15038/23 dated 05/14/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 for compensation for moral damages caused by the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, from the state of the Russian Federation and from the state of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims for compensation for moral damages from the state of the Russian Federation, indicating that the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments about mental suffering, loss of peace of mind, feelings of helplessness and disappointment as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The court noted that the courts did not assess the violation of the plaintiff’s rights to life, freedom of movement, the ongoing nature of the actions of the aggressor state, the nature of the forced changes in the plaintiff’s life, the depth of mental suffering, as well as the need to apply additional efforts to organize her life in order to ensure her safety. The court also pointed out the need to properly notify the defendant of the date of the court hearing through an announcement on the official website of the judicial branch of Ukraine, considering the termination of diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation. Regarding the claims against the state of Ukraine, the court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances aboutAbsence of proof of the state’s inaction that led to the violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to satisfy the claims for compensation for moral damage from the state of the Russian Federation and sent the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, and left the court decisions unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 501/5010/23 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code (theft committed on a large scale under martial law).
The court of cassation left the court decisions unchanged, since the court of first instance rightfully considered the case in a simplified procedure with the consent of the accused, explaining to him the consequences of such consideration, and the arguments of the convict regarding the violation of his rights, in particular regarding the absence of an expert examination to determine the amount of damages, are unfounded, since the amount of damages could be established on the basis of other evidence. The court also noted that the first instance properly responded to the convict’s complaints about his state of health. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that the court of appeal considered the case within the limits of the convict’s appeal, who did not dispute the classification of actions and the amount of stolen property, but only asked for mitigation of punishment.
The court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convict – without satisfaction.
Case No. 344/12716/23 dated 05/22/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by lawyer PERSON_5 against the ruling of the court of appeal, which left unchanged the verdict of the court of first instance regarding PERSON_8, convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense against the foundations of national security.
The court of cassation left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, since it did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedural law that would have prevented the court from making a lawful, well-founded and reasoned decision. The court noted that the court of appeal reasonably indicated that the verdict regarding PERSON_8 does not have preclusive force in relation to other persons mentioned in the verdict, and that the separation of materials regarding the convicted person into a separate proceeding was legal. Also, the court of cassation indicated that the lawyer’s references to the practice of the ECHR are irrelevant, since in this case the lawyer has already exercised the right to appeal the verdict in the interests of a person who was not a party to the court proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that in Ukraine, only a court decision that establishes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of resolving the issue of the admissibility of evidence has preclusive significance.
The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the lawyer – without satisfaction.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127702575](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127702575) **Case No. 161/14810/21 dated 06/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for human trafficking and labor exploitation.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, pointing out that the court of appeal did not properly analyze the arguments of the defender’s appeal, in particular regarding the voluntariness of the victims’ actions, their ability to move freely, as well as the conclusions of expert examinations regarding their ability to be aware of their actions. The court also noted that the court of appeal did not pay attention to how the deception was used specifically as a means of exploiting the victims, and not only as a means of recruiting them. In addition, the SC pointed to the absence in the case file of additions to the appeal, which were submitted by the defense in the court of appeal. The SC also emphasized the need to take into account the criminal criterion for determining the vulnerable state of a person, specified in the note to Art. 149 of the Criminal Code, when evaluating the conclusions of experts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127713222](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127713222) **Case No. 163/28/16-к dated 29/05/2025**
The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, resulting in the death of the victim).
The operative part of the decision does not provide the court’s arguments. The full text of the court decision is necessary to provide a complete answer.
The Supreme Court ruled: to leave the defender’s cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the judgment of the court of appeal – without changes.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127713231](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127713231) **Case No. 607/15605/21 dated 20/05/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 2 of Art. 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily harm committed by a group of persons in a prior conspiracy).
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, as the courts of previous instances, having examined the evidence, established that PERSON_7, in prior conspiracy with another person, intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on the victim. The court of cassation emphasized that its competence is limited to checking the correct application of the rules of law, and not to establishing the actual circumstances of the case. The SC noted that the courts of first and appellate instances properly investigated and evaluated the evidence, in particular, the testimony of the victim, witnesses, protocols of investigative actions and expert opinions, and came to a reasonable conclusion about the guilt of PERSON_7. The SC also rejected the defender’s arguments regarding violations of the criminal procedural law, in particular, regarding the failure to interrogate the victim in the court of appeal, since the court of appeal reasonably refused to satisfy the request for a re-examination, and also indicated
that the accused was not present at the stage of granting the final plea.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7.
**Case No. 1.380.2019.006676 dated 05/28/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the Sambir City Council on the approval of urban planning documentation – a detailed territory plan, which the plaintiff considers unlawful, as it violates his right to obtain a land plot for lease.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court, supporting the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that satisfying the claim requires the existence of the plaintiff’s violated right at the time of applying to the court, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence of acquiring the right to the land plot in dispute. The court noted that obtaining permission to develop a land management project does not guarantee obtaining a land plot for lease, and that the land management project must comply with the general plan and other urban planning documentation. The court also took into account that at the time the plaintiff applied to the court, the defendant had not made a decision on the approval of the land management project, and therefore, assessing the legality of the defendant’s actions regarding a possible refusal to approve the land management project is premature. The court emphasized that its competence does not include establishing new circumstances of the case, but only verifying the correctness of the application of legal norms by the courts of previous instances.
3. The court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim.
**Case No. 726/952/24 dated 05/22/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the acquittal verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of willful failure to comply with a court decision on the deprivation of the right to drive vehicles.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that the courts incorrectly interpreted the concept of the subject of the crime under Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the subject can be not only an official, but also an individual who is obliged to refrain from certain actions, in particular, driving a vehicle. The court also indicated that the courts did not properly assess the testimony of the accused, who admitted that he knew about the deprivation of his right to drive vehicles, and also unreasonably признали inadmissible evidence obtained from state authorities. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that administrative liability under Article 126 of the Code of Administrative Offenses does not exclude criminal liability under Article 382 of the Criminal Code, since these offenses differ in the object of encroachment and the objective side. The court also noted that the appellate court did not eliminate the violations committed by the court of first instance and did not properly assess the arguments of the prosecutor’s appeal.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance.
instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case No. 280/890/24 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the tax authority to register a natural person-entrepreneur as a single tax payer.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the natural person-entrepreneur, since at the time of filing the application for registration as a single tax payer, the plaintiff had a tax debt, which is the basis for refusal according to the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the existence of a tax debt was not disproved by the plaintiff, and the letter of refusal of registration provided by the tax authority is justified and meets the requirements of the law. Also, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the lack of authority of the person who signed the refusal, since the case file confirms the existence of such authority. The court did not agree with the plaintiff’s arguments that the amount of the debt was insignificant and subject to write-off, since the debt arose after November 1, 2020 and does not fall under the law on writing off tax debt. The court of cassation emphasized that each party must prove the circumstances on which its claims and objections are based, and the court evaluates the evidence based on its complete and comprehensive examination.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 380/25187/23 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the restriction by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine of the maximum amount of the plaintiff’s pension indexation, carried out in 2023 in accordance with the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that pension indexation is a mechanism to support the purchasing power of the population in the face of rising prices and is an integral part of pension payments. The Supreme Court noted that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has the right to determine the procedure and amounts of indexation, and the restriction of the upper limit of indexation in 2023 was introduced to balance the needs of social protection of a wide range of citizens, especially those receiving low pensions, and taking into account the state’s financial capabilities in the context of martial law. The court indicated that the establishment of a limit of UAH 1,500 does not contradict the law, since the indexation was carried out in compliance with the requirements of current legislation, and the total amount of the pension increase is not less than the minimum amount established by law. The court also took into account that the provisions of both the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” and the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Persons” grant the Government the right to determine the amount, conditions and procedure for indexing pensions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation
the appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the court of appeal – without changes.
Case No. 714/418/23 dated 05/26/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of contracts of sale of a residential building and a land plot as invalid.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the plaintiff missed the deadline for appealing and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of sending the appeal on April 24, 2024, in particular, a certificate from the post office or a payment document with a description of the attachment. The court emphasized that a person who intends to file an appeal must take all possible actions within their control to comply with the requirements of the procedural law regarding the deadlines for filing an appeal. The court also took into account the practice of the ECHR, according to which the right to a court is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions if they are applied for a legitimate purpose and are proportionate. The court indicated that the unfounded renewal of the term for appealing a court decision that has entered into legal force is a violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 525/1143/21 dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the court’s decision to refuse to satisfy the submission of the state executor to grant permission to foreclose on the debtor’s real estate, the ownership of which is not registered in the manner prescribed by law.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of a dispute about the right, since the apartment was purchased by the debtor under a sale and purchase agreement, but the ownership right was not registered. The court of cassation noted that the very fact of registration of ownership of the apartment by another person, after the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement, without a dispute regarding ownership, is not a basis for concluding that there is a dispute about the right and leaving the submission without consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that there is a special procedural mechanism for such cases, provided for by Article 440 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows resolving the issue of foreclosure on real estate, the ownership of which is not registered. The court also pointed out that the appellate court’s reference to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was erroneous, since the circumstances in the cases are different.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and transferred the case for continued consideration to the court of appeal.
Case No. 620/15888/23 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the inaction of the social protection department regarding the failure to inform the plaintiff about y
his right to simultaneously receive a survivor’s pension and state social assistance as a person with a disability since childhood, as well as regarding the refusal to recalculate and pay assistance for the past period.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the following:
* The Laws of Ukraine “On State Social Assistance to Persons with Disabilities Since Childhood and Children with Disabilities” and “On State Social Assistance to Persons Who Do Not Have the Right to a Pension and Persons with Disabilities” regulate different legal relations, and the first is a special law for persons with disabilities since childhood.
* The right to simultaneously receive state social assistance and a survivor’s pension is provided for by law, but to exercise it, a person must submit separate applications for each type of assistance.
* The assignment of a survivor’s pension does not create an automatic obligation for the social protection agency to assign assistance without a corresponding application.
* Payment of state social assistance for past time is possible only if there are valid reasons that made it impossible to apply for it in a timely manner, and the plaintiff did not provide such evidence.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the need to apply the norms of the law that regulates social assistance for persons who do not have the right to a pension, since the disputed legal relations are regulated by a special law for persons with disabilities since childhood.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 501/5010/23 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the convicted PERSON_6 against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding his conviction under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed on a large scale).
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged. Since only the operative part of the resolution is provided in the text, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the court of cassation was guided by. However, the Supreme Court usually verifies the legality and validity of court decisions based on the arguments of the cassation appeal and the materials of the criminal proceedings. The court could have concluded that the courts of previous instances correctly established the actual circumstances of the case, properly assessed the evidence, and correctly applied the criminal law. Also, the court could have taken into account the gravity of the crime committed, the identity of the convicted person, and other circumstances relevant to the case. The absence of the full text makes a more detailed analysis of the motives for the decision impossible.
The court decided to leave the judgment of the Illichivsk City Court of the Odesa Region and the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person – unsatisfied.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, upholding the decisions of the previous courts, as the guilt of PERSON_6 was proven by relevant and admissible evidence, and the classification of his actions under Part 4 of Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct. The court noted that the appellate court properly verified the arguments of the appellate complaints, provided them with a reasoned assessment, and motivated its decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that the arguments regarding the need to classify the actions under Article 355 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are unfounded, as there is no evidence of civil law obligations between PERSON_6 and the victim. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the technical recording of court hearings was conducted properly, and the motion to be released from punishment due to illness was not supported by the defense in the appellate court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the punishment was imposed taking into account the severity of the crime, data on the identity of the convicted person, and aggravating circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the convicted person and his defense counsel – unsatisfied.
Case №751/5879/21 from 27/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the ruling of the appellate court on the return of the appeal of the defense counsel against the judgment of the court of first instance, which acquitted a person accused of official negligence.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, emphasizing that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the requirements for an appeal. The court noted that the appellate court cannot analyze the requirements of the appeal for their validity at the stage of opening proceedings, but must consider them on the merits during the appellate review. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the party to criminal proceedings is free in choosing the method of formulating and substantiating its requirements, and this cannot be the basis for returning the appeal. The court indicated that the appellate court violated the party’s right to appeal, returning the complaint because the defense counsel’s requirements were deemed “unclear.” The Supreme Court referred to its own previous practice, according to which a shortcoming of the appeal, which is the basis for its return, cannot be considered the fact that the party did not indicate certain arguments in the complaint or indicated them in a way that the court considers insufficiently convincing.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and scheduled a new hearing in the court of appeal.
Case №203/1612/22 from 20/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal of the convicted PERSON_7 against the judgments of the court of first and appellate instances, by which he was convicted for unauthorized abandonment of a military unit under martial law (Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, overturned the previous court decisions and closed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a new law that provides for the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for military personnel who committed a crime for the first time under Art. 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, during martial law, provided that they voluntarily wish to return to military service and with the consent of the commander of the military unit. The court took into account that PERSON_7 committed a crime for the first time under Art. 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, during martial law, expressed a desire to return to the military unit to continue service, and the commander of the military unit gave his consent to this. The court also noted that the law providing for the possibility of exemption from criminal liability has retroactive effect if it mitigates or abolishes the responsibility of a person. The court ordered PERSON_7 to immediately return to the military unit, and the commander of the unit to reinstate him in the service.
3. The court overturned the verdicts of the courts of previous instances and closed the criminal proceedings against PERSON_7, releasing him from criminal liability on the basis of Part 5 of Art. 401 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 201/7700/23 dated May 22, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for treason.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, supporting the verdict of the court of first instance, by which the person was convicted under Part 2 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason), since the person’s guilt was proven by relevant and admissible evidence, in particular, witness testimony, identification protocols, review of Internet publications, copies of documents confirming Ukrainian citizenship and holding a position in the SES of Ukraine, as well as a warning about criminal liability for treason. The court of appeal properly verified the arguments of the defense counsel’s appeal and provided substantiated answers to them, and the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the proof of the person’s guilt are substantiated and confirmed by evidence examined in the court session. The court of cassation noted that the criminal procedural law does not require confirmation of information about a person’s citizenship exclusively by certain means of evidence, and the evidence available in the case file, such as a copy of a citizen of Ukraine’s passport, the oath of a citizen of Ukraine, and a warning about criminal liability, prove the person’s citizenship beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 380/25173/23 dated May 28, 2025
The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the tax notice-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Lviv region.
SupremeThe court partially granted the cassation appeal of the tax authority, pointing out the need for a more thorough investigation of the case by the court of first instance. The court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the courts of previous instances did not fully clarify all the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute, in particular, did not examine the primary documents and did not properly assess the arguments of the tax authority. Also, according to the Supreme Court, the courts did not take into account the practice of the Supreme Court regarding similar legal relations. Taking into account the above, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to ensure a complete and comprehensive consideration of the case.
The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 1.380.2019.006676 dated 05/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the Sambir City Council on the approval of urban planning documentation – a detailed plan of the territory, which the plaintiff considers illegal, as it violates his right to obtain a land plot for lease.
2. The Supreme Court, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that for the protection of a right in court, there must be a real violation of the rights, freedoms or interests of a person, which must be justified and individually expressed. The court noted that the plaintiff did not acquire any property rights to the disputed land plot either in court or in administrative proceedings, and did not provide evidence of his right to this plot. The court pointed out that obtaining a permit for the development of a land management project does not guarantee a positive decision on granting land for use, since the final decision depends on the compliance of the land management project with urban planning documentation and the absence of other legal obstacles. The court also took into account that at the time the plaintiff applied to the court, the city council had not made any decision regarding his application for approval of the land management project and the transfer of the plot for lease. The court recognized that the plaintiff’s arguments about actual land use cannot be assessed within the framework of this dispute, since there are no proper legal grounds for this.
3. The court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claim.
Case No. 127/37023/23 dated 05/27/2025
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of the appellate court regarding a person accused of committing a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or transfer of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues without the purpose of sale).
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court and rejected the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, however, the reasons for such a decisionThe arguments in the operative part are not specified. The full text of the ruling will be announced later, where the court’s arguments will be revealed. For now, it can only be assumed that the court found no grounds to overturn the decision of the appellate court, possibly due to the absence of significant violations of the criminal procedure law or incorrect application of substantive law. It is also possible that the appellate court made a lawful and justified decision, which the Supreme Court agreed with.
The court ruled: The ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal of June 27, 2024, regarding PERSON_6 shall remain unchanged, and the prosecutor’s cassation appeal shall be dismissed.
Case No. 278/260/22 dated 05/27/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the measure of punishment imposed on a person convicted of committing crimes against sexual freedom and sexual integrity of a person, as well as for the acquisition and storage of child pornography.
2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeals of the convicted person, his defender, and the victim, noting that the appellate court did not properly take into account the data about the identity of the guilty person, in particular, that he had no prior convictions, is a serviceman, a participant in hostilities, is positively characterized, and has two minor children to support, as well as the opinion of the victim, who asked not to punish the accused. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of individualizing the punishment and the possibility of correcting the convicted person without actual imprisonment, taking into account all the circumstances of the case in aggregate. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court unreasonably overturned the decision of the court of first instance on the release of the person from serving the sentence with probation. The court of cassation emphasized that punishment is aimed not only at retribution but also at correcting convicts, as well as preventing the commission of new crimes.
3. The Supreme Court amended the verdict of the appellate court in the part of the imposed punishment, releasing the convicted person from serving the main sentence with probation based on Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
Case No. 757/15702/24-ц dated 05/21/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the actions of JSC “Oschadbank” as illegal, the recovery of inflationary losses, three percent per annum, and compensation for moral damage related to the improper performance of the terms of the agreement on opening and servicing a card account.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, in particular, that the plaintiff missed the statute of limitations regarding the claims for recognition of the bank’s actions as illegal, since the violation of the plaintiff’s rights, in his opinion, took place in July and August 2013, and he applied to the court only in April 2024. The court also emphasized that the bank’s failure to fulfill its obligations regarding the issuance of the card and ensuring access to funds lasted for a certain period, but this does not make the violation ongoing in the context
concerning the calculation of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court noted that the claims for recovery of inflation losses, three percent per annum, and compensation for moral damages are unsubstantiated, as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the illegality of the bank’s actions and the causal link between the bank’s actions and the damages suffered. The court rejected the applicant’s reference to the Supreme Court’s practice regarding continuing violations, as in this case, the dispute concerns not the recovery of funds under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, but the recognition of actions as unlawful.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 160/7125/20 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of tax debt from LLC “Perspectiva Investment” and the appeal of a tax assessment notice.
2. The court of cassation instance, reversing the decisions of the lower courts, noted that the courts did not establish all the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute, in particular, did not clarify from what date the land lease agreements between LLC “Perspectiva Investment” and the Dnipro City Council were terminated, the date of entry into force of court decisions on termination of contracts, which is crucial for the correct calculation of the amount of rent arrears. Also, the courts did not take into account that residential complexes are located on some of the disputed land plots, which were transferred to the balance sheet of the Homeowners Association (HOA), although the right to use/own the land plots by the HOA has not been properly оформлено. The court indicated that only a valid lease agreement is the basis for calculating rent. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of the evidence, as well as the active role of the court in the consideration of the case. The Court noted that it departs from the previous position regarding the predominant application of the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures in disputes regarding the tax obligations of the debtor in a bankruptcy case, emphasizing the priority of the norms of procedural law in determining jurisdiction.
3. The court reversed the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 810/2503/18 dated May 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax demands and penalties for payment of a single contribution.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the tax authority missed the one-year period for appellate appeal established by the CAS of Ukraine for subjects of power. The court noted that the one-year period is preclusive and not subject to renewal, except in cases where the subject of power was not notified of the consideration of the case or was not involved in it, but the court made a decision on its rights and/or obligations. In this case
