Case No. 555\/66\/24 dated October 7, 2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Farm Enterprise “AVM-S” against the Main Department of the State Tax Service in Rivne Oblast for compensation of damages in the form of lost profits, caused, as the plaintiff claims, by unlawful actions of the tax authority.<\/p>\n
2. The court dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of all elements of a civil offense necessary to hold the defendant liable in the form of compensation for damages. In particular, the fact of causing damage by unlawful actions of the MD STS in Rivne Oblast, as well as the causal connection between these actions and the damage caused, was not proven. The court noted that the plaintiff exercised its right to appeal tax assessment notices in the administrative court and appealed court decisions in the bankruptcy case. In addition, the court found the amount of the claimed damage to be unreasonable and imaginary, as the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence to confirm the specific amount of losses. The court also emphasized that proving the amount of damage caused is the procedural obligation of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
Case No. 127\/13397\/24 dated October 8, 2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is an application for recognition of an individual as legally incapacitated and establishment of guardianship, in particular, regarding the appointment of a specific person as a guardian.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to appoint the brother of the legally incapacitated person as guardian. The court noted that a mandatory condition for the court to appoint a specific person as a guardian is the existence of a substantiated submission from the guardianship authority. In this case, the submission of the guardianship authority did not contain sufficient justification, in particular, the applicant’s physical ability to exercise guardianship was not analyzed, taking into account his separate residence from his brother, and the possibility of other family members living with the legally incapacitated person fulfilling the duties of a guardian was not assessed. The court also emphasized that when making a submission, the guardianship authority must take into account the best interests of the person under guardianship. The court of cassation emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case, examining and evaluating evidence is the prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n
Case No. 730\/717\/21 dated October 8, 2025<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person accused of illegal handling of weapons, ammunition, or explosives (Part
\n1. Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court does not provide specific arguments in this operative part of the ruling, but from the text, it can be understood that the defender’s cassation appeal was partially granted. This means that the court of cassation found certain violations or shortcomings in the decision of the appellate court that require reconsideration. It is possible that errors were made in the assessment of evidence, norms of substantive or procedural law were incorrectly applied, or important circumstances of the case were not taken into account. For a full understanding of the reasons for the annulment of the verdict, it is necessary to familiarize oneself with the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. The defender in the cassation appeal likely pointed to these violations, which became the basis for the partial satisfaction of the appeal by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the Chernihiv Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7 and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
Case No. 207\/3013\/20 dated 01\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “FC “Mustang Finance” for the release of property from seizure, which, according to the plaintiff, belongs to it by right of ownership.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the claim, since the seizures on the disputed property were imposed on the basis of court decisions in other cases, which are binding. LLC “FC “Mustang Finance” acquired ownership of this property after the imposition of the seizures, which, according to the court, is not a basis for lifting the seizure, as this would make it impossible to enforce court decisions on debt collection. The court noted that issues of securing the claim and canceling the relevant measures are resolved within the framework of those proceedings where they were applied. In addition, the court emphasized that the transfer of ownership of property already encumbered with a seizure does not render this seizure unlawful, especially when it is imposed to ensure the enforcement of a court decision. The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not assert claims for recognition of ownership of the property simultaneously with the claim for removal of the seizure, which also influenced the court’s decision.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “FC “Mustang Finance” and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/15275\/21 dated 07\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) to revoke the previous decision to grant permission to “Smart Holding (Cyprus) Ltd” to acquire shares of JSC “Kharkivoblenergo”.<\/p>\n 2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since at the time of the trial, there was already another decision of the AMCU, which granted the company permission to acquire the same shares, which made the appealed decision have no impac 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 907\/609\/25 dated 08\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a penalty for delay in fulfilling the terms of the contract for the provision of services for retrofitting the helicopter.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts on securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s funds. The court noted that securing a claim is a means of preventing possible violations of the plaintiff’s rights and interests, and its purpose is to enable the real execution of the court decision in the future. The judges emphasized that the existence or absence of grounds for securing a claim is decided in each specific case, taking into account its circumstances. An important condition for the application of security measures is a reasonable assumption that failure to take such measures may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision. The court also took into account the proportionality of the measures to secure the claim with the stated requirements, as well as the balance of interests of the parties. The judges emphasized that the execution of a court decision is an integral part of justice, and the application of measures to secure a claim contributes to guaranteeing the restoration of the plaintiff’s violated rights.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/10029\/24 dated 07\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt, recognition of actions as illegal, and obligation to perform actions under fuel supply contracts.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the court of appeal, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recovery of the cost of undelivered goods. The court of appeal justified its decision by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact that the defendant violated the obligations to supply the goods, since according to the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was responsible for receiving the fuel using coupons within a specified period. Also, the court took into account that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendant’s refusal to release the goods using coupons within the period of their validity. The court of cassation emphasized that the parties, guided by the principle of theirparties to the contract independently determined the terms regarding the self-pickup of goods, delivery terms, and the supplier’s responsibility in case the buyer does not receive the goods within the validity period of the voucher. The court of cassation noted that the fact of the expiration of the disputed contracts was not established, and the improper performance of its obligations by the defendant was not proven.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.<\/p>\n
\naffects the scope of the plaintiff’s rights. The court noted that the claim for protection of a civil right must correspond to the content of the violated right and ensure its restoration, and in this case, the satisfaction of the claim would not lead to changes in the scope of the plaintiff’s rights, but only to the existence of two identical decisions. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts of previous instances followed the instructions of the Supreme Court regarding the establishment of the legal purpose that the plaintiff seeks to achieve, and the assessment of the effectiveness of the chosen method of protection. The court also took into account the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for final court decisions.<\/p>\n