**Case No. 991\/9618\/24 dated August 11, 2025**
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129574656](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129574656)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to review the decision of the High Anti-Corruption Court on the application of sanctions to an individual based on newly discovered circumstances.<\/p>\n
2. The court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which refused to review the decision on the application of sanctions, since the circumstances referred to by the applicant are not newly discovered within the meaning of the procedural law, namely, they do not disprove the facts underlying the decision on sanctions. The court noted that the newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the decision, but must not be known to the court and the person applying, and in this case, the circumstances referred to by the applicant relate to a different period of time than those established by the court when applying the sanction. The court also emphasized that the review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances does not provide for a re-evaluation of the evidence that has already been evaluated by the court.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 907\/96\/25 dated August 14, 2025**
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129576771](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129576771)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open insolvency proceedings for an individual based on her application.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to open proceedings in the insolvency case, since the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the circumstances indicating her insolvency or the threat thereof, in particular, she did not provide a specific list of creditors indicating the structure of debt to each creditor and a draft debt restructuring plan that meets the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. The court noted that a printout of the credit report of the Ukrainian Bureau of Credit Histories is not proper evidence of the amount and structure of the debt, and also emphasized that the obligation to prove the circumstances of insolvency rests with the debtor who applies for the opening of proceedings in the case. The court also indicated that the refusal to open proceedings does not prevent re-application to the court if there are appropriate grounds.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 910\/18969\/23 dated August 12, 2025**
\n[https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129576885](https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/129576885)<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the opening of bankruptcy proceedings and recognition of creditors’ monetary claims, as well as the appointment of a property manager.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance in the part of recognizing the monetary claims of “Tekhkar” LLC and dismissed this application, since the application for bankruptcy from “Tekhkar” LLC was the first to be received by the court.
\n“Assisto”. The court of cassation emphasized that bankruptcy petitions must be considered in chronological order, and only after the first petition is rejected can subsequent ones be considered. The court also noted that Techkar LLC had not provided sufficient evidence of the bankruptcy trustee I.S. Komlyk’s vested interest in relation to the debtor or creditor “Assisto”. Techkar LLC’s arguments regarding the illegality of the accrual of penalties were not taken into account, as they were not raised in the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and assessing the evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first instance and appellate instance.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of Techkar LLC, and upheld the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance in the contested part.<\/p>\n
Case No. 904\/3534\/24 dated 08\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling of the appellate court, supporting the decision to secure the claim, since at the time the case was considered in the appellate court, the issue of the legality of declaring the debtor bankrupt and initiating the liquidation procedure had not yet been resolved. The court took into account that the liquidator had already taken actions to dispose of the property, in particular, putting up for auction the right to claim against a third party, which could lead to a decrease in the liquidation estate. The court also noted that the measures taken to secure the claim are temporary and aimed at ensuring a balance of interests between creditors and the debtor, as well as ensuring the legality of the bankruptcy trustee’s actions. The court of cassation agreed that failure to take measures to secure the claim could significantly complicate the effective protection of the rights of the creditor challenging the bankruptcy order. The court of cassation emphasized that the measures to secure the claim must be proportionate to the stated claims and not violate the rights of other creditors.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals, and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/4456\/24 dated 07\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 908\/2006\/23 dated 08\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> Case No. 922\/2523\/22 dated 08\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “U.P.E.K.”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 902\/1110\/24 dated 08\/13\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendant of a penalty, inflation losses and three percent per annum in connection with improper performance of obligations to pay for the delivered goods.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which partially satisfied the claims, recovering from the defendant a penalty, inflation losses and three percent per annum, while reducing the amount of the penalty by 80%. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant accepted the goods, which is confirmed by the signed consignment notes, but did not pay for them in a timely and full manner. The court of appeal critically assessed the defendant’s interpretation of the clause of the contract on final settlement after the registration of tax invoices, indicating that the registration of a tax invoice is a requirement of tax legislation, and not a suspensive condition. The court also noted that the plaintiff accrued penalties from the day following the registration of tax invoices, which does not contradict the established payment condition within 14 days. The court of cassation instance indicated that the conclusions set forth in the resolutions of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the defendant in the cassation appeal relate to legal relations that are not similar to the legal relations in the case under consideration.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/12415\/24 dated 08\/14\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from PrJSC “DTEK Kyiv Regional Power Grids” in favor of PrJSC “NEC “Ukrenergo” of inflation losses and 3% per annum in connection with the delay in fulfilling a monetary obligation.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance on partial satisfaction of the claim. The appellate court reasonably noted that since the amount of 3% per annum claimed for recovery corresponds to the amount established by law, there are no grounds for reducing them, taking into account the principles of fairness, good faith and reasonableness. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement to pay inflation and annual interest is the right of the creditor, which the latter is endowed with by virtue of the normative consolidation of these methods of protecting property rights and interests. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PrJSC “DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks” and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/1599\/25 dated 08\/14\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case, as it established that there were relations between “NORDICSTEEL” LLC and “HEAVY METAL” LLC, under which “HEAVY METAL” LLC received funds from “NORDICSTEEL” LLC without sufficient legal basis, which gives rise to an obligation to return these funds in accordance with Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the absence of a concluded agreement, which was referred to in the payment documents, indicates that the funds were received without grounds. The court also took into account that the debtor partially returned the funds, which confirms its awareness of the obligation to return them. The court rejected the arguments about the existence of a dispute over the right, since the debtor’s objections were not supported by proper evidence. The court also noted that the affiliation of the initiating creditor and the debtor is not an obstacle to the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case, as it does not disprove the fact of the existence of an obligation.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decision of the appellate court and the ruling of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/2378\/24 dated 08\/14\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not properly assess the evidence submitted by the debtor to confirm the existence of debt to creditors, and also did not take into account the debtor’s ability to correct deficiencies in the declaration of property status after its verification by the restructuring manager. The court noted that for the opening of proceedings in the insolvency case, it is sufficient to have one of the grounds provided for by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, and that the debtor’s possession of property does not exclude the possibility of the existence of overdue obligations. The court also pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the debt restructuring plan proposed by the debtor, which provided for full repayment of the debt to creditors within 5 years. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive, complete and objective review of all the circumof the case in their entirety, with due examination of the evidence collected in the case.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 920\/327\/24 dated 08\/14\/2025**<\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court noted that the IE did not substantiate how the recognition of the disputed clause of the agreement as contradicting the law would restore her rights and interests, and also did not prove that the chosen method of protection is effective. The court emphasized that the recognition of a clause of the agreement as contradicting the law would not automatically lead to its invalidity and would require additional appeals to the court, which makes the chosen method of protection ineffective. The court also indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly resorted to considering the case on its merits, without taking into account that an incorrectly chosen method of protection excludes the investigation and resolution of the dispute on its merits. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the assessment of the compliance of the disputed clause of the agreement with the legislation should be made in the reasoning part of the court decision with the application of the appropriate method of protection.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances on the refusal to satisfy the claim, changing only their reasoning part.<\/p>\n **Case No. 913\/266\/20(908\/387\/19) dated 08\/11\/2025**<\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance reversed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim for recovery of debt under the overdraft agreement, motivating this by the fact that the courts of previous instances did not take into account that PJSC “Ukrinbank” and PJSC “Ukrainian Innovation Company” are the same legal entity, despite the change of name, and that the cancellation of the NBU’s decisions on the liquidation of the bank caused uncertainty regarding its legal status, but did not terminate its obligations. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the arguments and evidence regarding the validity of the claims, limiting themselves only to citing the circumstances set out in the statement of claim, without clarifying the supporting evidence. The court also pointed to the need to take into account the legal position set out in the resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 16, 2024 in case No. 913\/266\/20, which established that changes to the company’s charter are not a reorganization and do not affect the scope of rights and obligations of the legal entity. The court of cassation instance emphasized the importance of a comprehensive, complete and objective 3. The court of cassation instance reversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 914\/3681\/23 (380\/16187\/23) dated August 12, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the private enforcement officer’s actions regarding the recovery of additional enforcement proceeding expenses and the cancellation of the decision determining the amount of these expenses.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances, which recognized the actions of the private enforcement officer as unlawful, since the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings had already been canceled at the time of the decision to recover additional expenses. The court noted that the private enforcement officer should have taken into account the court’s ruling to cancel the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings. The private enforcement officer’s arguments that the ruling to cancel the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings had not entered into legal force at the time of the disputed decision were rejected, since, according to the practice of the Supreme Court, rulings on appealing the actions of the enforcement officer enter into legal force on the day they are issued. The court also found no grounds to deviate from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the moment of entry into force of rulings issued as a result of consideration of complaints against the actions of a private enforcement officer. Regarding the complainant’s reference to the fact that he is not subject to the payment of court fees, the court noted that since the complainant did not pay court fees for filing an appeal, the imposition of court costs did not actually occur.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/1539\/21 (910\/9303\/21) dated August 13, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “SCN “Suchasna Komertsiyna Nerukhomist” (Modern Commercial Real Estate) for the adoption of an additional decision in the case of bankruptcy of LLC “ZV Realty” regarding the distribution of court costs incurred in connection with the appeal of court decisions.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court, granting the application of LLC “SCN “Suchasna Komertsiyna Nerukhomist”, was guided by the fact that, according to Article 244 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court may issue an additional decision if the issue of court costs has not been resolved. The court noted that an additional decision is an integral part of the original judicial act and a means of eliminating its incompleteness. The Supreme Court emphasized that, according to Part 14 of Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in the event of the cancellation of a decision and the adoption of a new one, the court of cassation instance changes the distribution of court costs. Considering that the cassation appeal of LLC “SCN “Suchasna Komertsiyna Nerukhomist” was satisfied, and the issue of the distribution of court fees was not resolved, the Supreme Court concluded that there were grounds for granting the application for the adoption of an additional decision. The court in 3. The court granted the application of LLC “SCN “Modern Commercial Real Estate” and ordered PrJSC “Rosava” to pay LLC “SCN “Modern Commercial Real Estate” UAH 31,780.50 of court fee for filing an appeal and cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 991\/4492\/23 dated 08\/14\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court, recognizing the defendants guilty, was guided by the fact that there was a prior conspiracy between the director of LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” and the chief engineer of the State Enterprise aimed at embezzling state funds by supplying substandard or incomplete equipment. The court found that LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” did not have an objective possibility to supply the equipment within the period stipulated by the contract, and the chief engineer of the State Enterprise, knowing this, signed the \u0440\u0430\u0441\u0445\u043e\u0434\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043d\u0430\u043a\u043b\u0430\u0434\u043d\u0430\u044f, which became the basis for transferring funds. To conceal the crime, the defendants simulated the transfer of equipment for \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u043a\u0430 and warranty repair, although in fact part of the equipment was never supplied. The director of LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” also carried out financial transactions with the received funds, transferring them as dividends and \u043e\u0431\u0433\u043e\u0442\u0456\u0432\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0432\u0448\u0438, which is qualified as legalization of criminal proceeds. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the possibility of LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” to fulfill the contract, citing the absence of evidence of the purchase of equipment from the declared supplier and other inconsistencies in the documents.<\/p>\n 3. The court rendered a guilty verdict, finding the director of LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” guilty under Articles 191 part 5 and 209 part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the chief engineer of the State Enterprise guilty under Article 191 part 5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing them to imprisonment with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions.<\/p>\n Case No. 908\/54\/23(908\/930\/23) dated 08\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation left unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint of LLC “LEND LOG” against the actions of the private \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c. The court noted that the order of the commercial court complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” and contained all the necessary details. Also, the court emphasized that the order was submitted for execution taking into account the ruling on the replacement of the \u0441\u0442\u044f\u0433\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0447. An important argument was that the absence of the status of an advocate in the representativeThe fact that the statement of claim was signed by an unauthorized person is not a ground for the return of the writ of execution, as the application for the commencement of enforcement proceedings was signed by an authorized person \u2013 the director of “GRULINS LIGHT” LLC. The court also took into account that the appellant’s arguments about the nullity of the power of attorney are only his personal interpretation of circumstances that go beyond the scope of this dispute. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within its competence.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “LAND LOG” LLC, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 925\/1323\/22 dated 08\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, noting that from the moment of the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case, the debtor is in a special legal regime, which changes the complex of his legal relations, and in such a case, the norms of bankruptcy legislation take precedence over other legislative acts. The court indicated that the bankrupt’s tax debt cannot be repaid by the tax authority independently at the expense of overpayments from other taxes outside the bankruptcy procedure and the established order of priority for satisfying creditors’ claims. Also, the court rejected the tax authority’s arguments regarding the need to provide copies of payment documents, since the refusal to return the overpayment was justified by the lack of data on the overpayment in the integrated payer’s card, and not by the lack of copies of payment documents. The court also noted that the liquidator requested to oblige to take actions, and not to recover funds, therefore, the involvement of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine is not necessary. The court indicated that the wrong choice of the form of the court decision (ruling instead of decision) does not affect its legality, if the essence of the decision is correct.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/3520\/24 dated 08\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation noted that the right to appellate review is a constitutional guarantee, and the simultaneous refusal to exempt from payment of court fees and the return of the appeal are unjustified, since the court had to provide an opportunity to pay the fee after refusing to grant the request. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that after refusing to exempt from payment of the fee, the court must give the person a term for its payment. The court also took into account the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamen 3. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the appellate court for a new hearing to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n1. Subject of the dispute is an appeal against the ruling of the appellate commercial court on securing a claim in a bankruptcy case by prohibiting the liquidator from taking actions to sell the bankrupt’s property.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties and fines from the contractor for alleged violation of the terms of performance of work under construction contracts.
\n2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff (customer) did not prove the fact that the contractor violated the terms of performance of the work, as the work was performed on time, which is confirmed by the signed acts. The court distinguished between the concepts of “violation of the terms for eliminating defects” and “violation of the terms of performance of work”, noting that the contract provides for liability for violation of the terms of performance of work. The court also took into account that the deadlines for eliminating defects were setthat had not yet expired at the time of filing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of the circumstances of the case and the evaluation of evidence are the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court does not have the authority to interfere in the evaluation of evidence. The Supreme Court also noted that the qualification of the subject matter of the dispute is the duty of the court, and the courts of previous instances correctly determined that the dispute concerns the recovery of penalties for violation of the terms for eliminating defects, and not the terms of performance of work.
\n3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the return of the writ of execution to the claimant and the removal of property from auctions by a person who is not a party to the enforcement proceedings, but considers himself the winner of the auction.
\n2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint, since the complainant is not a party to the enforcement proceedings and, accordingly, does not have the right to appeal the actions of the private enforcement officer in the procedure of judicial control over the execution of court decisions, provided for by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC). The court noted that only participants in the enforcement proceedings have the right to appeal the actions of the enforcement officer in accordance with Article 339 of the CPC. The court also indicated that the complainant can protect her rights in the procedure of administrative proceedings or by filing a separate lawsuit if she believes that her rights have been violated. The court rejected the complainant’s arguments that Article 74 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” gives any person the right to appeal the actions of the enforcement officer, since this norm, in the court’s opinion, applies only to participants in the enforcement proceedings. The court also noted that the absence in the ruling of the court of first instance of information on the procedure for appealing is not a ground for canceling legal and well-founded decisions of the courts.
\n3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal and uphold the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of PrJSC “U.P.E.K.” against PrJSC “Kharkiv Bearing Plant” in the bankruptcy case of the latter.
\n2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which partially recognized the claims of PrJSC “U.P.E.K.”. The court noted that in order to prevent unfounded claims against the debtor in a bankruptcy case, increased requirements are imposed before proving the circumstances related to the occurrence of the debt. The court indicated that the creditor did not provide proper evidence to support the claims on the bills of exchange, where there were violations in making changes to the text and where the endorsement was certified by the seal of another enterprise. Also, the court agreed that increasing the requirements regarding
\n3% per annum and inflation losses after the deadline for submitting creditors’ claims is inadmissible, as it is actually the submission of new claims outside the deadline. The court emphasized that the creditor has the right to file additional claims, but such a claim must be \u043e\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043ced in accordance with the requirements of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\nwith 3% per annum being the minimum interest rate that the creditor can expect, and this rate is not subject to reduction by the court. The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the appellate court’s failure to consider the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in other cases were not substantiated.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the bankruptcy case of “HEAVY METAL” LLC initiated by “NORDICSTEEL” LLC on the grounds of outstanding debt.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the refusal to open proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of an individual entrepreneur (IE) against a joint-stock company (JSC) to recognize a clause of the agreement on connection to power grids as contradicting the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition.”<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the overdraft agreement.<\/p>\n
\nof proper examination of evidence and application of all procedural powers.<\/p>\n
\nrejected the objections of PrJSC “Rosava” regarding the \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0443\u0441\u043a\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f of a reasonable period for filing the application, noting that the absence of a legislative definition of this concept cannot negate the right to reimbursement of court costs.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the accusation of the director of LLC “Em.Ai.Key.” and the chief engineer of the State Enterprise “O. Dovzhenko Film Studio” of embezzling funds from the state enterprise in a particularly large amount and legalizing these funds.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c regarding the legality of opening enforcement proceedings on the basis of an order of the commercial court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Cherkasy region to return to the bankrupt, “Shert” LLC, the overpaid amounts of taxes.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return of the appeal to a person in a bankruptcy case due to non-payment of court fees and the court’s refusal to grant the request for exemption from its payment.<\/p>\n
\nregarding fundamental freedoms concerning the right to a fair trial, which includes access to justice. The court pointed out that the appellate court violated the principles of equality of participants in the trial and ensuring the right to appellate review, which is a violation of procedural law.<\/p>\n