Case \u2116160\/33004\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order of the tax authority to conduct a documentary scheduled on-site audit of “PROMELECTRONIKA” LLC.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, as they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case that are relevant to its correct resolution, in particular, whether the statute of limitations provided for in Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine was observed when determining the period of activity to be audited, taking into account the suspension of the statute of limitations and the tax returns submitted by the taxpayer. The Court noted that Article 77 of the Tax Code of Ukraine does not contain provisions regarding the impossibility of conducting scheduled audits for periods that have already been audited, and that the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of the main basis of the stated claim. The Supreme Court also emphasized that when planning and conducting audits, controlling bodies must take into account the statute of limitations defined in paragraph 102.1 of Article 102 of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which also applies to the period of activity that may be covered by the audit. In addition, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to satisfy the application for securing the claim, as the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of grounds for applying such measures.<\/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 \u2116440\/6159\/25 dated 06\/11\/2025
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the tax authority to refuse registration of tax invoices and the obligation of the State Tax Service to register them.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which returned the statement of claim of “GARANT OIL GRUPP” LLC due to failure to eliminate the deficiencies within the period established by the court, namely non-payment of court fees. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the difficult financial situation and the expectation of receiving funds necessary to pay the court fee. The Court emphasized that when assessing the circumstances regarding the extension of the procedural term, the court should proceed from the assessment and analysis of all the arguments presented in the motion, as well as whether the applicant had the opportunity to fulfill his obligation in a timely manner, in this case, regarding the payment of the court fee. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain a balance between the state’s interest in collecting court fees and the applicant’s right to access to justice, taking into account the applicant’s financial capacity. The Court also reminded of the inadmissibility of excessive formalism in the application of procedural rules, which may lead to a restriction of the right to access to court.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.<\/p>\n
Case \u2116380\/13825\/21 dated 06\/11\/2025
\n**Case No. 826\/13468\/16 dated 11\/06\/2024**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of a tax assessment notice regarding the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
\n2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the lower courts because they did not fully clarify the circumstances of the case that are relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute, in particular, they did not examine the tax invoices for 2017, for which the controlling authority recalculated penalties in accordance with paragraph 73 of subsection 2 of the Transitional Provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine, and also did not establish the content of the business transactions on the basis of which these tax invoices were drawn up. The lower courts did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, set out in the previous ruling in this case, which are binding on the new consideration of the case. In addition, the courts did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the technical impossibility of registering tax invoices due to shortcomings in the operation of the VAT electronic administration system. Given these violations of procedural law, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case that are relevant to its proper resolution.
\n3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 320\/3637\/24 dated 05\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices of the Eastern Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers, issued to the Agricultural Limited Liability Company “STARYNSKA PTASHHOFABRYKA”.
\n2. The court decision does not state the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts of the ruling are provided. To provide a complete answer, the full text of the court decision is required.
\n3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Eastern Interregional Directorate of the State Tax Service for work with large taxpayers.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 280\/12151\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay compensation for the loss of part of the income due to the violation of the terms of payment of additional monetary remuneration.
\n2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to refuse to open appellate proceedings, as the military unit missed the deadline for appeal and did not provide sufficient evidence of valid reasons for missing the deadline. The court noted that the introduction of martial law is not in itself an unconditional basis for renewing the term, but evidence is needed that the circumstances related to martial law actually made it impossible to apply to the court in a timely manner. Also
\nthe court considered that the military unit repeatedly filed an appeal with a significant delay after the return of the first appeal, which indicates procrastination. The court emphasized that improper organization of the appeal process by responsible persons is not an objective circumstance that would make it impossible to comply with the deadlines. The court emphasized the importance of complying with appeal deadlines to ensure the principle of legal certainty.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the military unit and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n
Case No. 242\/4382\/15-\u0446 dated 05\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the actions of the private enforcement officer complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.” The court noted that the creditor (PJSC “Raiffeisen Bank Aval”) was correctly indicated in the writ of execution, since the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Directorate of PJSC “Raiffeisen Bank Aval” is a separate subdivision of the bank, and not a separate legal entity. Also, the court indicated that appealing the actions of the enforcement officer regarding property that has already been transferred to the creditor should be resolved in the order of claim proceedings, and not in the order of judicial control over the execution of court decisions, since in this case there are no mechanisms for restoring the rights of the applicant. The court emphasized that an effective way to protect the rights of the debtor is to file a lawsuit involving all interested parties, including the organizer of the auction.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/2308\/23 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court noted that decisions to refuse to recuse a judge are not subject to appeal separately from the court decision, but in bankruptcy cases, unlike the general rules of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, there is a special procedure for appealing decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the main proceedings in a bankruptcy case, the court does not make a decision, so the party to the case has the right to include objections to decisions that are not subject to appeal separately in the appeal against the next court decision, which is logically related to the non-appealable decision. The court indicated that the debtor mistakenly considers the decision on the recognition of creditors’ claims as a decision made based on the results of the preliminary hearing, since the preliminary hearing was held later. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court mistakenly refused to open proceedings, instead of returning the appeal. 3. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the refusal to open appellate proceedings and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 904\/3153\/22 (904\/3667\/24) dated 07\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the ruling on securing the claim, as circumstances were established indicating the validity of the claim for recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession and invalidation of the transaction. The court took into account that failure to take measures to secure the claim may complicate or make it impossible to enforce the court decision if the claim is satisfied, and also that the method of securing the claim corresponds to the subject of the claim and the principles of reasonableness, validity and adequacy. The court also noted that the existence of other encumbrances on the property does not exclude the need for additional measures to secure the claim, as previous encumbrances may be removed. In addition, the court emphasized that the prohibition of registration actions does not deprive the defendant of the right to possess and use the property, but only temporarily restricts the possibility of disposing of it. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the manager of the property reasonably applied for securing the claim, taking into account the established circumstances of the illegal disposal of immovable property from the debtor’s ownership.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432a (resolution) of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/1880\/22 dated 03\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC “Kyivoblgaz”, reversing the decisions of the previous instances in the part concerning the refusal to satisfy the complaint against the inaction of the state enforcement officer. The court indicated that the state enforcement officer is obliged to suspend enforcement actions and remove the seizure of the debtor’s funds in the part of the debt collection that is subject to regulation in accordance with the Law “On Measures Aimed at Overcoming Crisis Phenomena and Ensuring Financial Stability in the Natural Gas Market”. The court took into account that JSC “Kyivoblgaz” is included in the Register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure, and part of the debt falls under this Law. At the same time, the court agreed that the debt that arose after February 28, 2022 is not subject to settlement under this Law. The court also noted that the enforcement officer is not a participant in the debt settlement procedure and is obliged to act on the basis of the law.<\/p>\n 3. The court Case No. 923\/1139\/17 dated 11\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of closing appellate proceedings on the complaint of a person who is not a party to the bankruptcy case but believes that the first instance court’s decision on the recognition of creditors’ claims concerns their rights as a subject of subsidiary liability.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that a person who may potentially be held subsidiarily liable in a bankruptcy case is not automatically a party to this case and does not have the right to appeal the ruling on the recognition of creditors’ claims, unless this ruling directly resolves their rights and obligations. The court emphasized that at the time of recognition of creditors’ claims, the issue of subsidiary liability is not yet resolved, since a corresponding claim can be filed only at the stage of liquidation procedure. Also, the court noted that a person who did not participate in the case has the right to refute the circumstances established by the court’s decision in a future dispute regarding the imposition of subsidiary liability. The court indicated that the constitutional right to appellate appeal is not absolute and may be limited by procedural rules, in particular, to prevent unjustified interference in the bankruptcy procedure. The court also noted that it does not see grounds for a separate ruling regarding the bank’s actions, since this issue does not concern the appellant’s right to appellate appeal.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings.<\/p>\n Case No. 753\/8684\/23 dated 10\/08\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 1. The subject of the dispute is the plaintiff’s claim against the bank for the recovery of funds groundlessly debited from his card account, as well as compensation for moral damages, since the plaintiff believes that the bank did not provide adequate protection of his personal data.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the claim, considering the following: 3. The court decided to overturn the decisions of the courts of previous instances and send the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to clarify all important circumstances.<\/p>\n Case No. 2-643\/11 dated 08\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the submission of the state enforcement officer for the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution, since the fact of loss of the original writ of execution was established. The court noted that the state enforcement officer applied to the court with a submission for the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution within the one-year period established by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” No. 606-XIV, which is calculated from the moment the writ of execution is returned to the claimant. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, there is no reason to believe that the term for presenting the writ of execution for execution was missed, and, accordingly, there was no need for its renewal. The court also rejected the arguments of the debtor’s cassation appeal, as they do not refute the conclusions of the courts of previous instances and do not affect the legality of the court decisions.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal, and the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court were upheld.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/1591\/24 dated 29\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the claims of Everwelle LLC as justified, since Union Clark LLC did not fulfill its obligations under the financial agricultural receipt, the term of which has expired, and the security under the receipt ensures all payment claims of the creditor, including penalties and interest. The court noted that an agricultural receipt is a separate type of transaction that is performed independently of the performance of the supply contract on the basis of which the obligations arose, and that the amount of the obligation was determined by the debtor himself when issuing the receipt. The court also took into account that the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures does not establish a different procedure for determining secured claims than that provided for by the legislation on security and the terms of the contract.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation Case No. 500\/9398\/21 dated 05\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, proceeded from the fact that the municipal enterprise, in accordance with the Tax Code of Ukraine, has the right to pay land tax at a rate of no more than 3% of the normative monetary valuation of land, since the local council did not establish a different rate for this category of payers. The court noted that the provisions of Article 274 of the Tax Code of Ukraine differentiate land tax rates depending on the legal status of the taxpayer. Since the enterprise is municipal, and the local council did not establish a different rate for it, the general rule on the rate of no more than 3% applies. The court also took into account that the decisions of the local council did not contain a specific rate for municipal enterprises, therefore the controlling body had no grounds to accrue tax at a higher rate. As a result, the court recognized as unlawful the tax notice-decision, which increased the tax liability of the enterprise.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which recognized the tax notice-decision as unlawful.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/15380\/22 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, since they incorrectly applied Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine regarding the determination of the amount of compensation for untimely settlement upon dismissal, without taking into account the legal conclusions set forth in the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of October 08, 2025 in case No. 489\/6074\/23, and also did not establish all the circumstances necessary for the correct calculation of compensation, in particular, the amount of average earnings for the period of delay, the total amount of due payments upon dismissal, and the share of untimely paid funds. The court emphasized that the compensation must be proportional to the amount of unpaid amounts and comply with the principles of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality, and the courts must assess the circumstances of the case to determine a fair amount of compensation, taking into account the behavior of the parties and other important factors. The court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion of the cassation court in the resolution of December 06, 2024 in case No. 440\/6856\/22, emphasizing the need to apply the principle of proportionality when determining the amount of compensation.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances Case No. 640\/25491\/19 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decisions of the previous instances, noted that the certification of prosecutors is a mandatory procedure to confirm their ability to perform their duties, and that the plaintiff, by submitting an application for certification, expressed a desire to be transferred to the position of prosecutor in the Office of the Prosecutor General. The court pointed out that although the plaintiff reported valid reasons for not appearing for certification (sick leave), the personnel commission did not take this into account, which is a violation of the plaintiff’s rights. At the same time, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the personnel commission on the unsuccessful completion of certification within this case, which is important for assessing the legality of the dismissal order. The court also noted that the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which the plaintiff referred to, do not apply to the disputed legal relations, as they arose before the adoption of these decisions. As a result, the court decided that the courts of previous instances had violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case, and sent the case for a new trial.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 620\/194\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, indicated that pension indexation should be carried out by increasing the indicator of the average salary (income) in Ukraine, which was directly taken into account when calculating the pension, and not by establishing fixed surcharges. The court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not have the authority to establish a basic calculation value for indexation, as this negates the essence of indexation as a mechanism to support the purchasing power of the population. At the same time, the court took into account the deadlines for applying to the court, established by the CAS of Ukraine, and limited the period of payment of indexation to six months before the date of filing the claim. The court also noted that the provisions of Procedure No. 124 are subject to application exclusively in the part that does not contradict Law No. 1058-IV. The court noted that the right to pension indexation is not absolute and may be limited by the deadline for applying to the court.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, amended the decision of the court of first instance and partially satisfied the claim, obliging the Pension Fund to index the plaintiff’s pension, starting from June 30, 2023, taking into account Case No. 15\/81 (910\/14941\/24) dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the plaintiff in the case of invalidating the results of the auction, the sale and purchase agreement, and the return of property within the bankruptcy case.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to replace the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine with the State Property Fund of Ukraine as the legal successor in the case, since the debtor’s single property complex was transferred from the sphere of management of the Ministry to the sphere of management of the Fund. The court noted that procedural succession is possible at any stage of the judicial process if a person has been replaced in the relations regarding which the dispute arose. At the same time, the court emphasized that the provisions of Article 52 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine do not prohibit the replacement of the plaintiff by its legal successor, even if the transfer of the material rights of the plaintiff (predecessor) to the legal successor occurred before such plaintiff filed a claim with the court. The court also took into account its previous legal position, set forth in the resolution of 25.06.2025 in case No. 15\/81(910\/14936\/24), regarding similar legal relations. The defendant’s arguments that the Ministry was no longer the debtor’s management body at the time of filing the claim were rejected.<\/p>\n 3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 924\/1276\/23 dated 22\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the liquidator’s application for imposing joint liability on the management bodies of “Prodagrotrade” LLC for failure to satisfy the creditors’ claims due to violation of the obligation to timely file a petition for bankruptcy with the court.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the appellate court, which imposed joint liability only on one of the two members of the management body, the commercial director PERSON_2, taking into account the established circumstances of the case. The court noted that in order to impose joint liability under Article 34 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, it is necessary to prove the violation of the term for applying to the court with a petition for bankruptcy and the existence of signs of a threat of insolvency. The appellate court established that the director PERSON_1 acted in good faith, trying to comply with the requirements of the law, in particular, he addressed another member of the management body and initiated meetings, while the commercial director PERSON_2 ignored these actions and concluded agreements that led to the deterioration of the financial condition of the enterprise. The court of cassation agreed that the causal connection between the creditors’ losses and the actions of PERSON_2 was proven, and there was no fault on the part of PERSON_1, since he did not know about the conclusion of loss-making agreements and took measures to prevent bankruptcy.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Prodagrotrade” LLC and upheld the decision of the appellate court. Case No. 420\/35260\/23 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, overturning the decision of the appellate court, emphasized that according to Article 796 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, when concluding a lease agreement for a building or structure, the lessee automatically acquires the right to use the land plot on which they are located, regardless of the existence of a separate land lease agreement. This right arises by virtue of law and does not require additional agreement with the land owner, unless otherwise provided by the agreement between the lessor of the building and the owner of the land plot. Since VST-OIL LLC leased property complexes of gas stations, it acquired the right to use the relevant land plots, even in the absence of separate lease agreements for these plots. The tax authority unlawfully refused to issue a license, as the company provided sufficient documents confirming the legality of the use of the facilities. The court also noted that the transfer of non-residential buildings for lease does not change the actual lessee of the land plots located under these buildings.<\/p>\n 3. The court granted the cassation appeal of VST-OIL LLC, overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in favor of the company.<\/p>\n Case No. 676\/8280\/25 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court refused to grant the defense counsel’s motion, without providing detailed arguments in the operative part of the ruling. The ruling states that the full text will be announced later, which makes it impossible to establish the court’s motives at this time. However, given that the court did not grant the motion, it can be assumed that it did not find grounds for transferring the case to another court, possibly due to the lack of substantiated arguments regarding the impossibility of the case being heard by this court or the existence of circumstances that cast doubt on the impartiality of the court. It is important that the ruling is not subject to appeal, which emphasizes the finality of the cassation court’s decision on this issue. The final motives will be known after the full text of the ruling is announced.<\/p>\n The court ruled to dismiss the defense counsel’s motion.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/14646\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts, which returned the statement of claim to the enterprise, motivating it by the fact that the courts of the first and appellate instances violated 3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case to the court of first instance for continued consideration.<\/p>\n Case No. 440\/5763\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the individual entrepreneur documented expenses related to her business activities, in particular, for payment of licenses, information and consulting services, rent of premises, and repair work, which the tax authority unlawfully did not take into account when determining the object of taxation. The court also noted that the tax authority did not prove with appropriate evidence the individual entrepreneur’s violation of the requirements for maintaining records of inventory and transmitting data from registrars of settlement operations. In addition, the court pointed out the unsubstantiated conclusions of the tax authority regarding the use of purchased goods (building materials, energy drinks, and kvass) in non-business activities, since the individual entrepreneur was engaged in retail trade, and the purchased goods were intended for sale or use in the repair of commercial premises. Also, the court took into account that the individual entrepreneur was deprived of the opportunity to provide documents at the request of the tax authority within the established term and provided inventory records, which were not taken into account by the tax authority.<\/p>\n The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.<\/p>\n Case No. 127\/29931\/23 dated 29\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of termination of employment relations and the recovery of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation reversed the decision of the appellate court, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the following arguments: 3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the recovery of average earnings and upheld the first instance court’s decision to dismiss the claim in this part.<\/p>\n Case No. 920\/51\/23 dated 10\/28\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court dismissed the claim, since the plaintiff did not fulfill its obligations under the agreement, in particular, it did not develop and agree on the design documentation for internal power supply. The court noted that connection to the power grids should be carried out according to the criteria specified in the agreement, and the fulfillment of the defendant’s obligations depends on the prior fulfillment of the plaintiff’s obligations. The court also took into account that the accounting cabinet was installed on the border of the plaintiff’s land plot, which meets the requirements of the agreement and the Distribution System Code. In addition, the court pointed out the lack of evidence that the plaintiff submitted an application for connecting the object to the power grid in the established procedure, which is a necessary condition for the defendant’s liability for delay in fulfilling obligations. The court also took into account that the current legislation does not define the qualification of a transaction on connecting the customer’s electrical installations to the electricity grids of distribution systems as void, in case of non-compliance of such a transaction with the provisions of these acts.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 120\/11498\/23 dated 11\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court established that servicemen who are directly involved in hostilities are paid additional remuneration in the amount of up to UAH 100,000 in proportion to the time of participation in such 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. 372\/342\/24 dated 10\/31\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the defendant (seller) acted in bad faith, abusing her rights, since she alienated the property during a court dispute regarding its division with the plaintiff (former husband). The court also took into account that at the time of the conclusion of the contract of sale, an arrest was in effect on the disputed house, imposed by a court order in another case regarding the division of property. The court noted that the alienation of property that is under arrest may be declared invalid, regardless of the registration of the encumbrance, if the parties to the transaction were aware of the established prohibition. The court emphasized that the presumption of consent of one of the spouses to the disposal of joint property is valid only in favor of a bona fide acquirer, and in this case, the alienation of property occurred in order to avoid the division of joint property, which indicates the bad faith of the defendant’s actions. The court also took into account that at the time of consideration of the case in cassation proceedings, the decision of the appellate court, which the defendant referred to, was canceled, and the case was sent for a new trial.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 520\/3624\/24 dated 11\/06\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasizing that in order to continue the payment of monetary allowance after four months of continuous treatment, it is sufficient to have a conclusion from both the medical institution and the military medical commission (MMC) on the need for further treatment, and not only the conclusion of the MMC. The court emphasized that the courts of previous instances did not investigate 3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 340\/1011\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the tax authority’s refusal to register an individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer of the second group and obliging the tax authority to register the individual entrepreneur as a single tax payer.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous instances to refuse the individual entrepreneur’s application for review of the court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, since the circumstances referred to by the individual entrepreneur are not newly discovered within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, but are new circumstances that arose after the court decision was made. The court noted that the newly discovered circumstances must exist at the time of the trial and be unknown to the applicant and the court, and also be part of the subject of proof in the case. In this case, the subject of the study was the legality of the refusal to register as a single tax payer in October 2023, and the plaintiff indicates the fact of being on the general taxation system from April 1, 2024 as a newly discovered circumstance. The court also emphasized that the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the court.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the individual entrepreneur’s cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 756\/14514\/21 dated 22\/10\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the previous instances to dismiss the claim, since the plaintiff was duly notified of the court hearings, but repeatedly failed to appear in court, did not submit a motion to hear the case in his absence, and his failure to appear prevented the consideration of the case; the court noted that proper notification of the plaintiff about the date, time and place of the hearing, repeated failure to appear at the court session and failure to submit a motion to hear the case in his absence are of legal significance in this case; the court also indicated that the impossibility of the plaintiff’s representative to appear in the court session does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to appear in the court session or notify the court of valid reasons for non-attendance at the court session or submit a motion to hear the case in the absence of the plaintiff; the court emphasized that 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of MEGAINVEST SERVICE LLC and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/3637\/24 dated 05\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices by which the plaintiff’s income tax liability was increased and penalties were applied due to an alleged violation committed during the payment of dividends to a non-resident.<\/p>\n 2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that dividend income arises for the shareholder on the date of accrual (recognition of the shareholder’s right to receive dividends), and not on the date of actual payment. At the time of dividend accrual, the non-resident met the requirements of the Convention between Ukraine and Cyprus for the Avoidance of Double Taxation, namely, it owned the required percentage of capital and invested a sufficient amount of funds. The court also noted that the tax authority did not duly prove the fact of handing over the request for documents, which makes the application of penalties for failure to provide these documents unlawful. In addition, the court pointed out an error by the tax authority in referring to an invalid version of the international treaty. The court also took into account that the parties had submitted all the necessary statements on the merits of the case, as provided for by the CAS of Ukraine.<\/p>\n 3. The court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority.<\/p>\n Case No. 400\/5827\/24 dated 06\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices on reducing the amount of negative VAT and applying a fine for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation found that the appellate court did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the reality of business transactions with Alliance LLC and the legality of forming a tax credit based on primary documents. The appellate court did not take into account that the KB-2v form contains a detailed list of completed works, and also did not refute the fact that the works were performed on a territory that is not a restricted facility. In addition, the appellate court did not verify the validity of the calculation of the weighted average price of the sold goods, carried out by the controlling authority, and did not assess the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the fallacy of such an approach. Considering that the court of cassation does not have the right to establish new circumstances of the case, the appellate court committed a violation of the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court.
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the enforcement proceedings, namely the opening, conduct of enforcement actions, valuation and transfer of property to the creditor.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court to refuse to open appellate proceedings regarding the decisions of the court of first instance to refuse to recuse a judge in a case of bankruptcy of an individual.<\/p>\n
\nwhich makes a repeated appeal impossible.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the ruling on securing the claim, namely the seizure of immovable property and the prohibition of performing certain actions in relation to it.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Kyivoblgaz” against the inaction of the state enforcement officer regarding the failure to suspend enforcement proceedings and remove the seizure of the debtor’s funds.<\/p>\n
\nof appeal partially overturned the decisions of previous instances and recognized as unlawful the inaction of the state executor regarding the failure to suspend enforcement actions and remove the arrest from the debtor’s funds in the amount of UAH 55,580,537.16, obliging the executor to take appropriate actions.<\/p>\n
\nOf course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:<\/p>\n
\n * The courts did not clarify important circumstances, namely, whether the plaintiff worked at the bank at the time the funds were debited, whether he was familiar with the procedure for generating an electronic digital signature, as defined by the bank’s internal documents, and whether he complied with this procedure during the disputed transaction.
\n * The courts did not take into account that it is the bank that must prove that the client, through his actions or inaction, contributed to the loss or illegal use of personal data that allowed payment transactions to be initiated.
\n * The court noted that
\nthat the very fact of correct data entry for debiting funds is not an indisputable proof of the client’s guilt.
\n * The court emphasized the need to consider that the consumer in such legal relations is a weaker party, and doubts should be interpreted in his favor in the absence of proper evidence.
\n * The court pointed out that the circumstances of this case differ from other cases where the client was not an employee of the bank and did not have special knowledge of banking procedures.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of a state enforcement officer for the issuance of a duplicate writ of execution in the case of recovery from the debtor in favor of the bank of debt under a loan agreement.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the creditor’s claims of Everwelle LLC against Union Clark LLC in the bankruptcy case of the latter on the basis of a financial agricultural receipt.<\/p>\n
\nleft the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate and the ruling of the local commercial court \u2013 without changes.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the collection of tax debt on land tax from a municipal enterprise and appealing against the tax notice-decision, which increased the tax liability for this tax.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal.<\/p>\n
\nand sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all the necessary circumstances and the correct application of Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to dismiss the prosecutor from his position due to unsuccessful completion of certification.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the failure to index the plaintiff’s pension in 2021-2023.<\/p>\n
\nconsidering previously paid amounts, and left the claims for the previous period without consideration.<\/p>\n
\nw\/o changes.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the tax authority to refuse to issue a license for retail sale of fuel due to the applicant’s lack of proper documents for the right to use the land plot.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the defense counsel’s motion to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the state enforcement officer’s decision to collect the enforcement fee and the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n
\nthat the courts of previous instances, when considering the issue of reinstatement of the term for appealing to the court, took into account the evidence submitted by the defendant (state executor) even before the commencement of proceedings in the case, which contradicts the principles of administrative proceedings, in particular the principle of officially clarifying all the circumstances of the case. The court of first instance did not provide the plaintiff with the opportunity to provide explanations and refute the defendant’s arguments, and the court of appeal did not correct these violations. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty, according to which the court cannot violate the procedural order established by itself.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual entrepreneur against tax assessment notices and a demand for payment of debt on the single social contribution issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Poltava region.<\/p>\n
\n * There are no grounds for closing the proceedings in the case, since the grounds for the claims in the part of the claim for recovery of average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal are not identical to the corresponding claim in the previous case.
\n * The right to recover average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upand dismissal arises upon the entry into force of a court decision establishing the fact of termination of employment relations, since until that time there is no fault of the employer as a basis for liability.
\n * The conclusion of the appellate court that the termination of employment relations occurred on March 1, 2019, and that it is from this date that the period of delay in calculating the payment of amounts due to the dismissed employee should be calculated, is erroneous.
\n * The court took into account that the employer’s obligation to pay average earnings for the period of delay in settlement upon dismissal is a special type of liability that arises if the employer fails to pay the employee the amounts due upon dismissal through his fault.
\n * The court of cassation also noted that the courts did not establish the fact of execution of the court decision in the previous case on the recovery of wage arrears, nor did they establish the fact that the plaintiff missed the deadline for applying to the court.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of JSC “Sumyoblenergo” to fulfill the terms of the agreement on connection to the power grids and the recovery of penalties for the alleged failure to fulfill these terms.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the military unit regarding the failure to accrue and pay additional remuneration to the serviceman for participating in hostilities.<\/p>\n
\nin actions. The court noted that confirmation of participation in combat operations should not be excessively restrictive, and even if the documents have formal flaws, they may be sufficient to confirm the right to remuneration. The court pointed out that the court of appeal did not take into account the certificate of participation in combat operations together with other evidence, did not verify information about the absence of information in the combat logs, and ignored the reports on the payment of additional compensation. Also, the appellate court did not clarify what tasks the plaintiff performed, where and how this is confirmed, which is important for determining the right to remuneration. The court reminded that the burden of proving the legality of their actions lies with the defendant.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the invalidity of the contract of sale of the house, concluded between the defendants, since the plaintiff believes that his rights and interests are violated by this transaction.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the military unit regarding the termination of payment of monetary allowance to a serviceman who was undergoing long-term treatment after being wounded.<\/p>\n
\nand the available evidence, including the discharge summary, which could contain information about the plaintiff’s need for further treatment. Also, the court noted that the certificate of illness issued to the plaintiff is not a conclusion about the need for continued treatment, but a document confirming unfitness for military service. The court pointed out the need for a comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case and a proper assessment of all evidence relevant to the resolution of the dispute.<\/p>\n
\nLeaving a claim unconsidered does not deprive the plaintiff of the opportunity to re-apply to the court after eliminating the reasons that served as the basis for the relevant procedural decision.<\/p>\n
\nand sent the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n