Case \u2116990\/275\/25 dated 08\/28\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) to refuse admission to participate in the selection for the position of a judge of a local court.<\/p>\n
2. The court based its decision on the fact that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and the announcement of the HQCJ, a person who wishes to participate in the selection for the position of a judge must submit all the necessary documents that confirm their compliance with the requirements of the law on the date of application. One of these documents is an extract from the information and analytical system on the absence of a criminal record, which must be obtained no earlier than March 1, 2025. The plaintiff submitted an extract dated February 17, 2025, which does not confirm the absence of a criminal record at the time of application. The court noted that the requirement to provide an up-to-date extract is legal, as it confirms the candidate’s compliance with the requirements regarding the absence of a criminal record, and the submission of an outdated extract is a significant deficiency that is grounds for refusing admission to the selection. The court also emphasized that the HQCJ, by establishing the possibility of submitting an extract from March 1, 2025, provided candidates with sufficient time to obtain an up-to-date document.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the administrative claim.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116580\/489\/23 dated 08\/28\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the order of the State Tax Service of Ukraine by the Limited Liability Company “Zolotonosha Liquor and Vodka Factory “Zlatogor”.<\/p>\n
2. The court’s arguments are not stated in the decision.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Tax Service of Ukraine, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116580\/489\/23 dated 08\/28\/2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the annulment by the State Tax Service of Ukraine (STS) of the license for the production of alcoholic beverages to the Limited Liability Company “Zolotonosha Liquor and Vodka Factory “Zlatogor” (LLC “Zlatogor”).<\/p>\n
2. The court, granting the claim of LLC “Zlatogor”, proceeded from the fact that the STS did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm the illegal use of excise tax stamps by the plaintiff. In particular, the STS did not refute the conclusions of the previous letter of the SFS of Ukraine and the expert opinion, which confirmed the legality of classifying fruit and berry fermented beverages TM “Stygla” to the commodity subcategory 2206 00 51 00 according to the Ukrainian Classification of Goods for Foreign Economic Activity (UCGFEA). The court also took into account that the classification of goods according to the UCGFEA is within the competence of the State Customs Service, which previously did not object to the classification of similar products of the plaintiff under this code. The court emphasized that the STS did not prove that the beverages TM “Stygla” do not correspond to the commodity subcategory 2206 00 51 00, and also did not provide substantiated evidence of which UCGFEA code this product should be classified under. The court also
\nindicated that the conclusions of the STS regarding the plaintiff’s violation of the requirements for the use of excise tax stamps were premature, as the STS had not yet received an official conclusion from the State Customs Service regarding the classification of products.<\/p>\n
2. The court dismissed the STS’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.<\/p>\n
Case No. 990\/153\/25 dated 01\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject matter of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the assessment of practical tasks of a candidate for the position of judge.<\/p>\n 2. The court partially granted the claim, recognizing the decision of the HQCJU as unlawful in the part concerning the plaintiff, and obliged the HQCJU to re-evaluate the practical tasks performed by the plaintiff. The court pointed out the need to take into account the Methodological Guidelines for evaluating the practical task, approved by the decision of the HQCJU. In fact, the court found that the HQCJU did not fully comply with its own evaluation criteria, which led to a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. The court’s decision is based on the need to ensure an objective and impartial assessment of candidates for judicial positions. The court also decided to recover from the HQCJU in favor of the plaintiff the costs incurred by him for the payment of court fees.<\/p>\n 3. The court partially granted the claim, recognizing the decision of the HQCJU as unlawful in the part concerning the plaintiff and obliging the HQCJU to re-evaluate his practical tasks, taking into account the methodological guidelines.<\/p>\n Case No. 824\/20\/19 dated 28\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject matter of the dispute is the foreclosure of real estate, the ownership of which is not registered in accordance with the procedure established by law, in enforcement proceedings for the enforcement of an arbitral tribunal’s decision on the recovery of debt.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, stating the following. The court of first instance refused to satisfy the private enforcement officer’s submission, and the appellate court upheld this decision. However, the appellate court failed to take into account that the absence of registration of ownership of real estate is not an unconditional obstacle to its foreclosure within the framework of enforcement proceedings. The court must investigate the issue of the actual owner of the property, clarify whether the debtor is the actual owner of the property proposed for foreclosure, and whether there are other circumstances that may prevent the foreclosure of this property. Also, the courts need to take into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding compliance with a fair balance between the interests of the creditor and the debtor in the enforcement of judgments.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court granted the private enforcement officer’s appeal, overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, and sent the case to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for continued consideration.<\/p>\n Case No. 909\/786\/23 dated 27\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The dispute in the case concerns the recovery from a communal underenterprises of the value of unjustifiably acquired property \u2013 natural gas.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since the enterprise that filed the appeal was not a party to the case at the time the decision was made by the court of first instance, and acquired the status of debtor only at the stage of enforcement proceedings. The court noted that the decision of the court of first instance did not contain any conclusions regarding the rights, interests or obligations of this enterprise. The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural succession extends the legal force of a court decision to legal successors, but does not grant the right to appeal a decision that has already entered into legal force. Also, the court of cassation instance pointed to the stability of judicial practice regarding the application of norms of procedural law in similar cases, where a person who was not a party to the case tries to appeal the decision. The court emphasized that the right to appeal to the court is not absolute and is limited by the requirements of procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 909\/636\/23 dated 08\/27\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the private enforcement officer, when opening enforcement proceedings and carrying out collection, did not take into account the court’s ruling on the installment execution of the court decision, which was published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions and, therefore, was available for review. The court noted that the ruling on the installment execution of a court decision is binding on the enforcement officer and determines the procedure for executing the decision, and the private enforcement officer, without taking into account the installment schedule, prematurely collected funds from the debtor and unjustifiably collected remuneration. The court also emphasized that the ruling on the installment execution of a court decision came into effect from the moment it was issued, and not from the date of the court’s decision on the merits of the dispute, and that the appellants’ references to Article 331 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine are irrelevant, since this norm only determines the maximum term of installment, and not the procedure for its application. The court took into account that the term for payment of the debt has already expired, therefore the collected amount of debt is not subject to return, but the remuneration of the private enforcement officer must be returned, since it was collected illegally.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and the decisions of the previous instance courts remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/842\/21 dated 08\/28\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court noted that a public organization has the right to appeal to the court in the interests of its members if it is stipulated in its charter and related to the purpose of the activity. The Court also pointed out the error of considering the case in a simplified procedure due to its public significance. The key issue was the compliance of the Territory Zoning Plan (zoning) of the city of Irpin of 2013 with the current General Plan of 2018, since the plaintiff claimed that the development intentions did not correspond to the General Plan. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess these arguments, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Court referred to its previous resolution of June 19, 2024 in case No. 320\/10145\/21, which stated that in the event of non-compliance of the Territory Zoning Plan (zoning) of the city of Irpin of 2013 with the updated General Plan, the updated General Plan of the territory of the city of Irpin, as the main urban planning document, is subject to application.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned 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. 752\/21328\/19 dated 08\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the notary’s writ of execution as not subject to execution.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the notary’s writ of execution as not subject to execution, since JSC “UkrSibbank” applied to the notary after missing the three-year period established by law for making the writ of execution. The courts took into account that the bank in 2010 appealed to the court with a claim for early recovery of credit debt, which changed the term of the loan agreement and, accordingly, the beginning of the term for making the writ of execution. Since the writ of execution was made in 2014, that is, outside the three-year period, the courts concluded that there were grounds for its cancellation. The court also noted that no actions have been established that would indicate the interruption of this period. In addition, the court of cassation emphasized that when resolving a dispute regarding the recognition of a writ of execution as not subject to execution, the court must check the debtor’s arguments in full and establish whether, at the time the notary made the writ of execution, the debtor really had an indisputable debt to the creditor.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of JSC “UkrSibbank”, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 600\/3379\/23-a dated 08\/28\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Viknyanska Village Council regarding the failure to take measures to organize work on marking the boundaries of the geological natural monument of local importance “Onutsky stinka” in kind.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the couThe courts of previous instances erroneously determined that the State Environmental Inspection of the Carpathian District lacked the authority to appeal to the court with this claim, since it is the State Environmental Inspection that is entrusted with the duty to control compliance with the requirements of legislation on the protection and use of natural reserve fund territories. The court noted that the failure of local self-government bodies to take measures to establish the boundaries of natural reserve fund territories is a violation of the law, and the State Environmental Inspection has the right to appeal to the court to protect the interests of the state in this area. The court also took into account the conclusions set forth in the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0456 [ruling\/resolution] of the Supreme Court dated February 27, 2024, in case No. 620\/6905\/22, which confirmed the right of the State Environmental Inspection to appeal to the court with similar claims. At the same time, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the merits of the dispute, namely, the presence of inaction on the part of the village council regarding the organization of work to demarcate the boundaries of the natural monument in situ, which is necessary to ensure its protection and use for its intended purpose. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the existence of a cadastral number for the land plot, as this does not indicate that the boundaries of the geological monument and the land plot coincide.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning part of the court decisions, but leaving the decision on the merits unchanged.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of Joint Stock Company “Prykarpattyaoblenergo” against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the execution of a court decision on the recovery of debt in favor of Private Joint Stock Company “National Energy Company “Ukrenergo”.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions and decision of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of the executive body of the Irpin City Council regarding the issuance of urban planningterms and restrictions (TUR) for the construction of an apartment building.<\/p>\n