[Case \u2116480\/12208\/23 dated July 31, 2025](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129240669)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the military unit against the appellate court’s ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings due to the missed deadline for appealing.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, noting that the martial law itself is not an unconditional ground for restoring the deadline for appealing, and the military unit did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm objective obstacles to appealing the decision of the court of first instance in a timely manner. The court emphasized that organizational difficulties in the work of the legal department and the lack of funds to pay the court fee are not valid reasons for restoring the deadline, since timely payment of the fee is the responsibility of the party, and the organization of record keeping depends on the efficiency of the institution itself. Also, the court rejected the reference to the practice of the ECHR, noting that it concerns the protection of the rights of individuals and legal entities against the state, and not vice versa. The court indicated that the long period of missing the deadline (more than two months) and the lack of evidence of actions taken to appeal in a timely manner indicate the absence of objective grounds for restoring the deadline.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
[Case \u2116560\/4896\/24 dated July 31, 2025](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129240701)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the military unit against actions regarding the calculation and payment of financial allowance to the plaintiff, a combatant.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the military unit’s appeal, indicating that the appellate court had violated the norms of procedural law. In particular, the appellate court considered the military unit’s application to extend the deadline for eliminating deficiencies in the appeal (payment of the court fee) simultaneously with resolving the issue of returning the appeal, which violates the principle of legal certainty and the party’s legitimate expectations. The court of cassation emphasized that the military unit had the right to expect its application for an extension of the deadline to be considered, and only after refusing to grant this application should the appellate court have provided an opportunity to pay the court fee. Also, the court of cassation referred to its own previous conclusions, according to which the realization of the right to file a motion for deferral of payment of the court fee cannot be assessed as non-compliance with the court’s ruling on payment of the court fee and result in the return of the appeal.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation ruled to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
\n**Case No. 205\/2130\/21 dated 07\/28\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of property from another’s illegal possession, the invalidation of a mortgage agreement, the recognition of an execution endorsement as not subject to enforcement, and the cancellation of the state registration of ownership.<\/p>\n
2. The court of appeal, whose decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, proceeded from the fact that the property was disposed of from the plaintiff’s possession illegally, since after the cancellation of the ruling on the approval of the settlement agreement, the ownership of the property remained with the plaintiff, although it was not re-registered. The court also found that the defendant acquired ownership of the disputed property not in the manner prescribed by law. The court took into account that the concept of a “bona fide mortgagee” is not applicable to the disputed legal relations, since the defendant could not have been unaware of the illegality of the acquisition of the property. The court noted that the recovery of property does not violate the criteria of proportionality of interference with the defendant’s right of ownership, since the latter has the right to demand compensation for damages from previous owners. The court emphasized that the court decision is aimed at protecting the violated right of the plaintiff and establishing the rule of law.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 420\/14210\/23 dated 07\/31\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the legality of issuing a forest cutting permit for selective sanitary felling in the territory that is part of the national natural park.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that in order to carry out felling in the territory of the national park, limits on the use of natural resources and a permit for the special use of natural resources approved by the central executive body in the field of environmental protection are necessary, and their absence makes the issuance of a forest cutting permit illegal. The court emphasized that the special regime for the use of territories of the nature reserve fund arises from the moment of determining their boundaries according to the creation project, and not from the moment of establishing the boundaries in kind. Also, the Supreme Court noted that measures to improve the sanitary condition of forests within the nature reserve fund are carried out in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Nature Reserve Fund of Ukraine”. The court also noted that the obligation to comply with environmental protection legislation arises from the date of creation of the object of the nature reserve fund, regardless of the execution of protection obligations.<\/p>\n
3. The court granted the claim to recognize as illegal the actions of the enterprise regarding the issuance of a forest cutting permit.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 440\/25\/24 dated 07\/31\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Chornukhyne settlement council regarding maintenance in proper
\nin the condition of a civil defense protective structure.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, leaving the prosecutor’s claim without consideration, since the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Main Department of the State Emergency Service and the Lubensky District Military Administration, which, in the court’s opinion, do not have the authority to appeal to the court with such claims. The court noted that the interests of the state should be protected primarily by authorized subjects of power, and the prosecutor plays a subsidiary role, replacing them only in cases where they do not provide protection or do it improperly. The court emphasized that the authority of the State Emergency Service body to appeal to the court is conditioned exclusively by the implementation by the State Emergency Service body of the provisions of Article 68 of the Code of Civil Protection, which defines the actions of this subject as the application of sanctions for violations of the requirements of legislation in the field of civil protection. The court also indicated that the Lubensky District Military Administration is not authorized to appeal to the court with a claim to oblige the balance holder of the protective structure to bring it into compliance with the requirements, since there is no direct indication of this in the law.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case No. 922\/4513\/24 dated 07\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusion of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing, namely, he did not prove the existence of circumstances that were objectively insurmountable and did not depend on his will. The court noted that the absence of a lawyer in the territory of Ukraine and the plaintiff’s family circumstances are not sufficient grounds for renewing the term, as they do not prove the actual impossibility of filing an appeal in a timely manner, in particular, concluding an agreement with another lawyer. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of insurmountable circumstances that prevented him from appealing to the court within the established deadline. The court of cassation emphasized that appealing to the appellate court is a right, not an obligation, and the realization of this right must take place in compliance with the established deadlines. The court of cassation also noted that it cannot re-evaluate evidence and establish new circumstances that were not established by the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/2591\/23 dated 07\/22\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which partially satisfied the claim of “Voytovske” Agricultural Company, recognizing its ownership of the harvest, since at the time of sowing, “Voytovske” Agricultural Company had legitimate expectations of using the land, and “Platon.003” LLC had not yet registered its lease rights to the disputed plots. The court also took into account that some plots were subleased by “Voytovske” Agricultural Company or were not leased to “Platon.003” LLC at all. The appellate court thoroughly analyzed the evidence of both parties, including GPS tracker data, primary accounting documentation, and contracts, giving preference to the evidence of “Voytovske” Agricultural Company as more credible. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence already evaluated by the courts of previous instances and agreed with the conclusion that there are no grounds for recovering damages from “Voytovske” Agricultural Company, since “Platon.003” LLC did not prove their amount. Also, the court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court regarding the partial satisfaction of the application of “Voytovske” Agricultural Company for reimbursement of legal aid costs, taking into account the complexity of the case and the time spent by the lawyer.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of “Platon.003” LLC.<\/p>\n Case No. 906\/1155\/24 dated July 30, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court incorrectly determined the subject of the claim, since it did not take into account the plaintiff’s waiver of part of the claims, which led to the lack of correlation between the claims for securing the claim and the claims themselves. Also, the appellate court did not take into account the principles of proportionality and adequacy of the measures to secure the claim, did not refute the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the absence of grounds for imposing an arrest on the object of unfinished construction and a ban on construction works, and also did not evaluate the evidence submitted by the parties. In addition, the appellate court did not take into account that the measures taken to secure the claim should not impede the economic activity of the participants in the legal relationship and violate the rights of other persons who are not parties to the dispute. The court of cassation instance emphasized that when considering an application for securing a non-property claim, the court should establish whether the failure to take the declared measures will lead to significant complications or make it impossible to effectively protect or restore the violated rights of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/15383\/23 dated 07\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal on the replacement of the debtor in the enforcement proceedings, since the Department of Permitting Procedures for Outdoor Advertising of the Dnipro City Council was deprived of the authority to issue permits for outdoor advertising and is in the process of liquidation, and the Dnipro City Council has not yet determined a new authorized body. The court noted that the formal uncertainty in the structure of the subject of power is not a basis for blocking the execution of a court decision, and in this case, the Executive Committee of the Dnipro City Council, which previously made decisions on issuing permits, is the proper legal successor to ensure the execution of the court decision. The court also emphasized that the actions of the city council, which led to the impossibility of enforcing the court decision, are incompatible with the principle of good governance, and the risk of any organizational error should be borne by the state, and not by the person whose rights were confirmed by the court. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the liquidation of a state institution without legal succession does not relieve the state of the need to enforce the decision.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 815\/7067\/16 dated 07\/28\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case. The courts did not investigate the reality of the economic transactions of LLC “Tedis Ukraine” with counterparties, in particular, did not clarify the availability of the necessary resources for the counterparties to carry out activities, the origin of the goods, and did not properly assess the verdicts in criminal proceedings against the counterparties. The court emphasized that to confirm the reality of economic transactions, it is necessary to investigate not only the availability of primary documents, but also to establish the circumstances regarding the execution of contracts, the availability of conditions for counterparties to carry out activities, and to investigate verdicts and criminal proceedings against counterparties. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances 2. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and send the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 260\/8632\/24 dated 08\/01\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the border detachment to perform certain actions, regarding which the plaintiff applied to the court.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the appeal of the border detachment, justifying this by the fact that proper evidence of sending a copy of it to the plaintiff was not attached to the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that since the representative of the plaintiff (lawyer) has the authority to represent in the appellate court and received a copy of the appeal in electronic form through the “Electronic Court” system, this is a proper fulfillment of the defendant’s obligation to notify the participant in the case. The court emphasized that the appellate court mistakenly left the appeal without motion, since sending a copy of the complaint to the lawyer who has the appropriate authority is a proper notification of the party. The court rejected the plaintiff’s reference to another practice of the Supreme Court, since in that case the powers of the representative were limited to the first instance.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 641\/543\/25 dated 07\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute was an appeal against a decision on an administrative offense issued by the Department of Patrol Police.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance left the decisions of the previous instance courts unchanged, since the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the claim without consideration before the start of the case’s consideration on the merits, which is his right in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU). The court noted that the right to dispose of the claim is the exclusive right of the plaintiff, and the procedural law does not connect it with any conditions or the obligation to substantiate such a decision. The court also indicated that there is no evidence in the case file that the plaintiff withdrew the application to dismiss the claim without consideration or evidence that the application was drawn up by the court secretary. In addition, the court emphasized that the consideration of the case on the merits had not yet begun at the time of filing the application, and therefore the court of first instance rightfully applied paragraph 5 of part one of Article 240 of the CAPU.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/48251\/23 dated 07\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices, by which Piskivsky LLC”Glass Products Plant” was denied VAT budget refund and the amount of negative VAT value was reduced.<\/p>\n 2. The court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the taxpayer has the right to re-apply for the VAT amount to be refunded from the budget, which was denied by the tax notice-decision form “\u04123”, provided that there are no violations of Articles 197-199 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court also noted that the tax authority did not prove the fact of destruction or loss of goods for which the refund was claimed due to force majeure circumstances, which is a necessary condition for the application of subparagraph 69.29 of paragraph 69 of subsection 10 of section XX of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the inventory check of the balances of inventory items was carried out by the controlling body only according to the accounting data without physical visit to the warehouses. The court also took into account the taxpayer’s explanations regarding the impossibility of conducting a complete inventory due to hostilities and the provision of information on losses recorded in the inventory reports. The court noted that the controlling body did not properly assess these circumstances and did not justify the rejection of the taxpayer’s explanations.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case \u2116340\/1214\/24 dated 01\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances mistakenly refused to open proceedings, considering the dispute to be identical to the one already resolved in case \u2116340\/588\/20. The Supreme Court emphasized that a complete identity of the parties, subject matter and grounds of the claim is necessary to refuse to open proceedings. In this case, the plaintiff, inter alia, refers to circumstances related to the illegal reduction of the allowance for work intensity, which was the subject of consideration in another case (\u2116340\/6684\/21) and was not taken into account when calculating average earnings in the previous case. The courts of previous instances did not properly assess these circumstances and the defendant’s refusal to pay voluntarily, which is important for determining the identity of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that the final determination of the subject of the dispute and the nature of the legal relations takes place after the opening of proceedings.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n Case \u2116907\/914\/22 dated 22\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation 2. The court of cassation partially overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review regarding the claims against two defendants, leaving the decision regarding the third defendant unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116916\/1534\/24 dated 07\/22\/2025** 2. The court denied the initial claim and granted the counterclaim, based on the fact that LLC “BONA VITA – DM” is the manager of apartment buildings and actually acts in the interests of household consumers, providing them with heat, and therefore is a collective household consumer. The court took into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Natural Gas Market” and resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which establish maximum gas prices for household consumers, as well as Law of Ukraine \u2116 2479-\u0406\u0425, which provides for the write-off of accounts payable for gas consumed in October-November 2021, in the amount exceeding the cost of gas at the price of UAH 7,420 per 1000 m3. The court established that LLC “BONA VITA – DM” paid for gas at the established maximum price, therefore any other debt is subject to write-off. The arguments of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” that LLC “BONA VITA – DM” is a heat producer were not taken into account by the court, as this does not change the status of LLC “BONA VITA – DM” as a collective household consumer.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” and left the court decisions of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case \u2116620\/16979\/24 dated 07\/31\/2025** 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the securing of the claim, as the courts did not substantiate how the execution of the contested NEURC order would complicate the execution of the court decision or the protection of the rights of “Chernihivoblenergo.” The court noted that measures to secure a claim should be aimed at protecting the rights of the plaintiff, and not third parties who are not parties to the case. In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized the prohibition of suspending the effect of a decision of a subject of power, which is not the subject of appeal in the case. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that the purpose of securing the claim is to protect the rights of the plaintiff, and not any other persons who are not parties to the case. The court also referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court on this issue.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and denied the motion to secure the claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 638\/18074\/23 dated 07\/29\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the verdict, as it concluded that the courts of previous instances had properly established the factual circumstances of the case and correctly applied the criminal law. The court noted that the appellate court considered the case in the absence of a defense attorney, as the latter reported his inability to be present and asked that the case be considered without his participation. Also, the court of cassation rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the possibility of applying Articles 69 and 58 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, since the sanction of Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not provide for alternative types of punishment, and the conditions for applying Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine are absent. The court also disagreed with the arguments about the decriminalization of the crime, since for exemption from criminal liability on the basis of Part 5 of Article 401 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the voluntary consent of the person to return to military service is necessary, which was not the case here.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 350\/1444\/19 dated 07\/22\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. This operative part of the ruling does not contain the arguments of the court. To find out the arguments, it is necessary to read the full text of the ruling, which will be announced on July 28, 2025. The full text should state the reasons why the court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances and rejected the cassation appeal of the defense counsel. Usually, the cassation court examines the legality and validity of court decisions, based on the evidence available in the case file, the assessment of such evidence by the courts of previous instances, and compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the accused.<\/p>\n Case No. 350\/1444\/19 of 22\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment, as the courts of previous instances carefully examined all the arguments of the defense, which were reduced to violations during the pre-trial investigation, in particular regarding the absence of a decision to create a group of investigators, the protocol of interrogation of a witness, violation of the terms of preparation of the covert investigative (search) actions protocols and inadmissibility of evidence. The court noted that the conclusion on the guilt of PERSON_7 is substantiated by the testimony of witnesses, covert investigative (search) actions protocols, search protocols, expert opinions and other written evidence. Also, the court of cassation referred to the fact that the defense had equal rights to collect and submit evidence, and the issue of compliance of the indictment with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code is resolved at the stage of preparatory court hearing. The court of cassation also noted that the absence of a separate decision on the involvement of a person in confidential cooperation is not a violation, and the preparation of a covert investigative (search) actions protocol outside the term is not a ground for recognizing it as inadmissible evidence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 520\/29081\/23 of 31\/07\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the prosecutor’s claim, since the prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine, which, according to the current legislation, does not have the authority to independently apply to the court with a request to prepare protective structures. The court noted that 3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/1405\/14 (910\/16475\/21) dated July 8, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances, as the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not clarify when exactly the liquidator learned about the existence of the disputed agreement, which is important for determining the beginning of the statute of limitations; the courts did not properly assess the liquidator’s arguments regarding the signs of insolvency of LLC “Khlib Investbud” at the time of the conclusion of the agreement and the purpose of its conclusion; the courts did not clarify whether the actions of the parties to the agreement were bona fide and whether they showed signs of abuse of rights; the courts did not clarify all the circumstances relevant to establishing the presence or absence of signs of a fraudulent transaction. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts should take into account that the institution of invalidating the debtor’s transactions within the bankruptcy case is a universal means of protecting the interests of creditors.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 285\/1934\/16-\u043a dated July 31, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The operative part of the decision does not state the court’s arguments. To find them out, you need to wait for the full text of the decision.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeals of the defender and the legal representative, overturned the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 200\/5481\/24 dated 08\/01\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that part of the claims in the new case are identical to the claims that have already been resolved in the previous case No. 200\/314\/24, where the court ordered a recalculation of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance taking into account the cost of living. The court noted that the plaintiff in the new statement of claim did not provide any other grounds for appeal, except for the reduction of the bonus, and therefore, in the part of the claims regarding the official salary, there is a dispute between the same parties, about the same subject matter and on the same grounds. The court also took into account that in this case, the courts of previous instances partially satisfied the plaintiff’s claims regarding the recalculation of the bonus. The court of cassation emphasized that its task is to verify the legality of court decisions, and not to establish new circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 520\/29395\/23 dated 07\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the prosecutor’s statement of claim, since the prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the body that does not have the authority to independently appeal to the court with such a claim; the analysis of legislation does not grant the SESU the right to appeal to the court with a claim regarding bringing protective structures into readiness, and therefore, the right to appeal against the inaction of the balance holders; the prosecutor did not prove the legal grounds for appealing to the court, both in terms of the competence of the Main Department of the SESU and his\/her own. 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the appellate commercial court’s ruling on the refusal to open appellate proceedings due to missing the deadline for appealing.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of ownership
\nregarding the harvest of wheat and the obligation to return property between “Voytovske” Agricultural Company and “Platon.003” LLC, as well as the recovery of damages.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles to the use of a land plot and the termination of a construction participation agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal to extend the validity period of permits for outdoor advertising and the obligation to extend the validity period of these permits.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of tax notices-decisions by which LLC “Tedis Ukraine” was increased the amount of monetary obligation for value added tax and excise tax on retail trade in tobacco products.<\/p>\n
\nThey did not comply with the instructions of the Supreme Court given during the previous cassation review of this case.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the refusal of the South-Eastern Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice to pay part of the average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages caused to the plaintiff as a result of improper transportation of cargo.<\/p>\n
\npartially overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which closed the proceedings in the case, citing that the dispute is subject to a foreign court because one of the defendants is a non-resident. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not consider that the plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against several defendants, and it is necessary to establish the degree of fault of each of them, as well as to ascertain whether they violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court only in the part of closing the proceedings regarding the non-resident company, since the dispute with it is indeed subject to resolution in a foreign court. Regarding the other defendants, the case was returned to the appellate court to continue the review and establish their liability. The court of cassation emphasized that the determination of defendants is the right of the plaintiff, but the establishment of their relevance and the validity of the claim is the duty of the court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for natural gas supplied by LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine” (supplier of “last resort”) to LLC “BONA VITA – DM”, and a counterclaim for the obligation to write off accounts payable.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the National Commission,
\nthat carries out state regulation in the spheres of energy and utilities (NEURC), regarding the imposition of a fine and the obligation to eliminate violations on the Joint Stock Company “Chernihivoblenergo.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an 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 unauthorized abandonment of the place of service under martial law (Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding a person accused of committing criminal offenses related to illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs, precursors, and theft, appropriation, extortion of equipment intended for the manufacture of narcotics.
\nor their analogues.<\/p>\n
\n1. 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 for illegal production, possession and sale of psychotropic substances.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Department of Culture of the Lozova City Council to prepare a civil defense protective structure.<\/p>\n
\nthat the prosecutor did not prove the existence of legal grounds for representing the interests of the state represented by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU), as the relevant regulatory legal acts do not grant the SESU the right to appeal to the court with such a claim. The court emphasized that the prosecutor cannot be considered an alternative entity to appeal to the court and replace the proper entity of power that can and wishes to protect the interests of the state. Also, the court took into account that there are other mechanisms for responding to non-compliance with the requirements for the maintenance of civil defense shelters, which can be applied by the supervisory entity. The court rejected the appellant’s reference to previous decisions, pointing out differences in factual circumstances and regulatory framework.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalid assignment agreement concluded between LLC “Khlib Investbud” and Individual Entrepreneur Vynnychenko, since the liquidator of the bankrupt believes that the agreement was concluded in order to evade obligations to creditors.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the application of compulsory medical measures to a person who committed a socially dangerous act under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional homicide).<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Military Unit regarding the calculation of the plaintiff’s monetary allowance, in particular, the correctness of the calculation of the official salary and the reduction of the percentage of the bonus.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the municipal enterprise regarding bringing the civil defense structure into readiness and obligating it to take certain actions to ensure its readiness.<\/p>\n
\nof their powers to represent the interests of the state; the courts took into account that the interests of the state should be protected primarily by the relevant subjects of power, and the prosecutor plays a subsidiary role if the authorized body does not provide protection or does so improperly; the prosecutor’s references to the previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court are unfounded, since those decisions concerned other circumstances and were based on different regulations.<\/p>\n