**Case No. 907\/523\/24 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. Subject of the dispute is the recognition of a land lease agreement between the Department of Urban Infrastructure of the Uzhhorod City Council and “Tsehelnyi Zavod No. 1” LLC as concluded with specific conditions, including the amount of penalty for late payment of rent.<\/p>\n
2. In this case, the court of cassation considered the issue of whether the courts of previous instances have the right to change the terms of the Standard Land Lease Agreement approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in particular, to reduce the amount of penalty for late payment of rent. The court noted that, according to the established practice of the Supreme Court, courts do not have the right to deviate from the provisions of the Standard Agreement regarding the amount of penalty, as this contradicts the law. The court emphasized that reducing the amount of the penalty established by the Standard Agreement is not a specification of the terms of the agreement, but a direct violation of the law. The court also took into account that the Standard Agreement is valid and mandatory for application. Based on this, the court ruled that the appellate court erroneously changed the decision of the court of first instance regarding the amount of the penalty.<\/p>\n
3. The court of cassation changed the decision of the appellate court, upholding the provision on the penalty in the amount of 100% of the annual rent, as provided for in the Standard Land Lease Agreement.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 910\/11352\/24 dated 09\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court on the partial satisfaction of the application of “Gasoiltechnopipe” LLC for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine” LLC, reasoning that the plaintiff timely notified of its intention to submit evidence of incurred expenses after the court decision, which complies with the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court took into account that the plaintiff provided a preliminary calculation of court costs in the statement of claim and submitted evidence within five days after the decision was made, as provided for by procedural law. Also, the court of cassation noted that the defendant did not substantiate how the submission of the invoice and payment instruction after the decision affects the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor
\nThe decision was made. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the reasons for not submitting the contract and additional agreement before the decision were valid, and also emphasized the need to avoid excessive formalism in resolving the issue of compensation for legal aid expenses.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”, and upheld the decision of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal dated June 18, 2025 in case No. 910\/11352\/24 without changes.<\/p>\n
Case No. 911\/1974\/24 dated 09\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court, when considering the application of LLC “Autospetsprom”, was guided by the principle of reimbursement of court costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made, as well as the need to ensure the person’s ability to effectively protect their rights in court. The court took into account the evidence provided by the defendant regarding the incurred expenses for professional legal assistance, in particular, the contract for the provision of legal assistance, the appendix to the contract, the act of acceptance and transfer of services provided, the invoice for payment and the warrant of the lawyer. At the same time, the court took into account the prosecutor’s objections regarding the disproportion of the declared expenses to the amount of legal assistance provided and the criteria of reality, reasonableness of the amount of expenses. Considering that the response to the cassation appeal was prepared by the head of LLC “Autospetsprom” in the order of self-representation, and not by a lawyer, the court did not include the cost of the relevant services in the amount of compensation. The court also took into account the defendant’s consistent legal position in the case and the lack of reasonable arguments from the prosecutor regarding the disproportion of the declared expenses.<\/p>\n 3. The court partially satisfied the application of LLC “Autospetsprom” and decided to recover UAH 10,000 from the Office of the Prosecutor General for legal aid expenses in the court of cassation.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the application of LLC “Autospetsprom” for the distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation in the case of recovery from LLC “Autospetsprom” in favor of the state represented by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine of penalties and fines.<\/p>\n