**Case No. 990\/434\/25 dated 12\/17\/2025**
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal of the ruling of the High Council of Justice on leaving the judge’s resignation application without consideration.<\/p>\n
The court based its decision on the fact that the High Council of Justice (HCJ) had no legal grounds to leave the judge’s resignation application without consideration. The court noted that the procedure for considering such applications is clearly regulated by law, and the HCJ should have considered the application on its merits, and not refuse to consider it. The court emphasized that the judge’s right to resign is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine, and the HCJ cannot arbitrarily restrict this right. Also, the court pointed out that the HCJ did not provide proper justification for leaving the application without consideration, which is a violation of the requirements regarding the validity of decisions of public authorities. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedure for considering resignation applications, as this affects the status of the judge and his social guarantees.<\/p>\n
The court granted the claim, \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0432 declared the HCJ’s ruling illegal and cancelled it, obligating it to consider the judge’s resignation application.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 420\/15055\/22 dated 12\/16\/2025**
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Notaries on the annulment of the certificate of the right to engage in notarial activities of a private notary, as well as orders issued on the basis of this decision.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the actions of the Southern Interregional Department of the Ministry of Justice (Odesa) regarding the submission of a motion to annul the notary’s certificate to the High Qualification Commission of Notaries were illegal, which was established by a court decision in another case. The Supreme Court emphasized that these circumstances are of precedential importance for this case, since the decision to annul the certificate was made on the basis of this motion. The court also noted that the defendants did not prove the legality of their decisions, and their arguments amount to disagreement with the assessment of the circumstances of the case by the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of the first and appellate instances.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals, and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.<\/p>\n
**Case No. 990\/395\/25 dated 12\/17\/2025**
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the inaction of the President of Ukraine regarding the failure to consider the plaintiff’s appeal regarding the violation of his constitutional rights due to the actions of the Kyiv Metro Communal Enterprise and the Ukrspeczv’yazok State Enterprise.<\/p>\n
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the resolution of the issues raised by the plaintiff in the appeal is not within the powers of the President of Ukraine, which are exhaustively defined by the Constitution of Ukraine. The court noted that the President acts within the powers established by the Constitution.
\nand cannot interfere in the activities of other authorities. The plaintiff’s appeal was rightfully forwarded to the National Police, as it contained information about a threat to life and health. The court also took into account that similar appeals from the plaintiff had already been considered, and he had been provided with substantive responses, which gives grounds to consider the appeals as repetitive. In addition, the court emphasized that citizens’ appeals do not automatically create “subjectivity” in legal relations regarding the activities of SE “Ukrspetssviazok” and do not change the content of these legal relations. The court also noted that the plaintiff is not deprived of the right to appeal with a proposal to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in which to express his advice, recommendation regarding the activities of the State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection or SE “Ukrspetssviazok”.<\/p>\n
3. The court decided to deny the claim of PERSON_1 against the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to recognize actions as illegal and to oblige to perform certain actions.<\/p>\n
Case No. 902\/325\/25 dated 17\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation, upholding the decision of the appellate court to satisfy the claim, proceeded from the fact that JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” did not provide the service of non-standard “turnkey” connection within the term established by the Distribution System Code, namely until 07.07.2023, but reported on the provision of the service only on 06.12.2024. The court rejected the arguments of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” about the absence of a connection object (non-residential building), since the agreement concerned external power supply, and not the internal networks of the customer. The court also noted that JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” did not prove that the plaintiff (LLC “Gallery Business Hall”) obstructed the performance of work, and did not appeal to the plaintiff with a request to extend the term of service provision. The court emphasized that the notification of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” on the provision of the connection service confirms the fact of fulfillment of the obligation to connect the customer’s object, including the supply of voltage to the agreed connection point and the installation of an introductory device.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo”, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/13250\/24 dated 17\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, motivating this by the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of violation of her rights and legitimate interests by the appealed decision of the audit committee, as well as the lack of possibility of restorenewal of these rights in case the decision is declared invalid; the court noted that the act of the audit commission does not create, change, or terminate the rights and obligations of the plaintiff, but only confirms the amount of charges established by the general meeting of the HOA; the court also indicated that the plaintiff is actually trying to challenge the technical passport for the parking lot issued by the Bureau of Technical Inventory (BTI), which goes beyond the scope of this dispute; the court emphasized that by filing this claim to invalidate the decision of the audit commission, PERSON_1 is actually trying to achieve a retrial of another case in which a decision has already been made and has entered into legal force, which may lead to a violation of the principle of legal certainty.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 918\/360\/25 dated 12\/15\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing that the imposition of an arrest on property being prepared for privatization through an auction is an interference with the auction procedure, which is expressly prohibited by the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court noted that the measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the stated claims, and in this case, the arrest of property intended for auction does not meet this requirement. Also, the court emphasized that when considering an application for securing a claim, the court must be convinced of the absence of a real threat of non-enforcement of the court decision and balance the interests of the parties. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of legal certainty and the need to ensure proper administration of justice. In addition, the court took into account that the application of measures to secure a claim should not violate the rights and legitimate interests of persons who are not parties to the court proceedings.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance refusing to grant the application for securing a claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 902\/25\/24 dated 12\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, indicating that the claims of PERSON_3 regarding the payment of the value of his share in the authorized capital are not a monetary obligation of the debtor, but a corporate right to a share in the net assets of the company, which can be realized only after the claims of all creditors are satisfied. The court emphasized that the opening of pro 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_3, changing only the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision.<\/p>\n Case No. 902\/25\/24 dated 12\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the previous instances, as Soufflet Agro Ukraine LLC did not prove the existence of all the elements of a civil offense necessary to recover damages from Vinnytsiaagroproektbud LLC, in particular, the illegality of the debtor’s conduct and the causal relationship between its actions and the creditor’s losses were not proven. The court took into account that Soufflet Agro Ukraine LLC had already recovered a penalty from Vinnytsiaagroproektbud LLC for non-performance of the same contracts, and did not prove that the claimed damages were not compensated by this penalty. The court also noted that replacement purchases of corn at higher prices are part of the commercial risk borne by Soufflet Agro Ukraine LLC as a professional market participant. The court also took into account the decision of another case, which established that Vinnytsiaagroproektbud LLC did not assume the risk of changes in circumstances that led to the impossibility of fulfilling the contracts.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of Soufflet Agro Ukraine LLC, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 915\/1172\/24 dated 12\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which established that the Gas Distribution System Operator did not prove the fact of unauthorized connection of gas appliances by the consumer, since: (1) the gas appliances were installed with the knowledge and approval of the Gas Distribution System Operator, which is confirmed by the design documentation and previous acts of inspections; (2) the act of violation does not contain sufficient data to confirm the excess of the calculation range of the metering unit; (3) The Operator 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts remained unchanged.<\/p>\n Case No. 537\/2944\/16-\u043a dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court of cassation partially granted the cassation appeal of the defense, reasoning that the lower courts had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the presence in the actions of the convicted person of the qualifying element of extortion of undue advantage, since the only evidence of this was the testimony of a witness, and no other convincing evidence of the intentional creation of conditions under which the victim was forced to give a bribe was provided. The court emphasized that to comply with the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not enough for the prosecution’s version to be only more likely than the defense’s version, but it is necessary that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s version be refuted by facts established on the basis of admissible evidence. The court also noted that the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all elements of the crime, including the objective and subjective aspects.<\/p>\n The court amended the judgments of the lower courts, excluding the qualifying element of extortion of undue advantage from the indictment and reclassified the actions of the convicted person under Part 1 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of 3 years.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/410\/24 dated 11\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the decision of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to refuse to submit a proposal to the President of Ukraine regarding the appointment of a person to the position of judge. 3. The court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n **Case No. 910\/11128\/23 dated 04\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from former bank officials jointly over 11 billion hryvnias in damages caused to the bank.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance to leave the claim without consideration. The court of first instance considered that the plaintiff had not provided timely translations of documents for notification of the defendant-non-resident. The appellate court reasonably noted that the obligation to properly notify the parties to the case rests with the court, and the failure to provide a translation of documents attached to the claim is not an unconditional obstacle to the consideration of the case on the merits. The court of cassation emphasized that the main purpose of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents is to ensure proper communication of information to the parties to the proceedings, and the court of first instance did not substantiate the need to translate a large volume of documents, considering that the defendant is a citizen of Ukraine and speaks Ukrainian. In addition, the court of cassation noted that the court of first instance did not assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted for resolving the dispute on the merits.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n **Case No. 990\/464\/25 dated 17\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) and the obligation of the HQCJU to take certain actions.<\/p>\n 2. Unfortunately, the provided excerpt of the decision does not contain the arguments that the court relied on when making the decision. Therefore, I cannot provide them.<\/p>\n 3. The court completely dismissed the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.<\/p>\n **Case No. 380\/1373\/24 dated 17\/12\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of head of the interregional department in connection with the reorganization of the state body.<\/p>\n 2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, dismissed the claim, considering that the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service (NAUCS) complied with the dismissal procedure by offering the plaintiff vacant positions. The Supreme Court did not agree with this conclusion, since the courts of previous instances did not take into account the obligation of the NAUCS to offer all available vacant equivalent or lower positions, taking into account the professional training and competence of the plaintiff, and also did not clarify whether the plaintiff’s preferential right to remain in the job was observed. The courts did not investigate the changes in the structure 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.<\/p>\n Case No. 711\/2520\/21 dated 12\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation found that the lower courts did not properly assess the appealed decision of the executive committee of the city council and its compliance with the obligations arising from the previous court decision, in particular, they did not verify whether the provided housing actually meets the requirements of the law regarding area and the possibility of privatization. The court noted that the case is an independent public law dispute, the resolution of which cannot depend on the results of enforcement proceedings. Also, the court pointed out that the lower courts did not take into account that the plaintiff’s claims were considered as an independent subject of the dispute in another case, where they were separated from the procedure for appealing the actions of the state executor. Given that the courts did not establish the circumstances important to the case, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case to the court of first instance for a new trial.<\/p>\n Case No. 604\/1299\/24 dated 12\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying the defender’s cassation appeal. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that guided the court of cassation in making the decision from the provided operative part of the resolution. Typically, the Supreme Court reviews the legality and validity of court decisions based on the arguments of the cassation appeal, the correct application of substantive and procedural law, as well as the completeness of the investigation of the case’s circumstances by the lower courts. The absence of the full text makes it impossible to provide a more detailed analysis of the motives for the decision.<\/p>\n The court ruled: to leave the verdict of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_8 unchanged, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of defender PERSONBA_6 – without satisfaction.<\/p>\n Case No. 911\/1291\/24 dated December 9, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, reasoning that the plaintiff had not proven the violation of his corporate rights and the occurrence of negative consequences by the disputed decisions, as well as the expiration of the statute of limitations for certain claims. The court noted that the general meeting was authorized, and the powers of attorney to participate in them did not require notarization at the time the decisions were made. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding violations of procedural law, in particular, the refusal to request evidence, since the plaintiff did not substantiate the impossibility of obtaining it independently. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot overturn a correct decision on the merits for formal reasons.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n Case No. 5\/530-03 dated December 9, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate commercial court, reasoning that the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Vinnytsia Oblast had fulfilled the requirements of the separate order, namely, credited the insurance contributions to the personalized record of the individual, as evidenced by the relevant extract from the register of insured persons. The court noted that the appellant’s arguments do not refute the fact of execution of the court decision. Also, the court indicated that a separate order is not a decision that resolves the dispute on the merits, but is a form of response to an offense, therefore, the requirements for judicial control over the execution of court decisions do not apply to it. At the same time, in order to ensure the right to access to the court, the court of cassation reviewed the report on the execution of the court decision submitted by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Vinnytsia Oblast.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate commercial court.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/316\/25 dated December 11, 2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court based its decision on the fact that, according to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” a person who wants to become a judge must submit all the necessary documents confirming their compliance with the requirements of the law on the date of submission of the application for participation in the selection. The HQCJ established a requirement to provide an extract from \u0456\u043d 3. The court decided to dismiss the administrative claim.<\/p>\n **Case No. 420\/15055\/22 dated 12\/16\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Notaries regarding the annulment of the certificate of the right to engage in notarial activities of a private notary, as well as orders issued on the basis of this decision.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which recognized the decision and orders as unlawful, since they were adopted on the basis of a submission that, as established by a previous court decision, was made in violation of the established procedure. The court emphasized that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into legal force are prejudicial to this case, and the defendants did not refute these circumstances. The court also noted that the arguments of the cassation appeals essentially boil down to disagreement with the courts’ assessment of the circumstances of the case, which is not a basis for overturning court decisions in the cassation procedure. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence, but reviews court decisions on the basis of the factual circumstances of the case established by the courts.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.<\/p>\n **Case No. 320\/35134\/24 dated 12\/17\/2025**<\/p>\n The subject of the dispute in the case is the appeal against the tax notices-decisions of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv region by PROPAN-SERVICE Limited Liability Company.<\/p>\n The decision does not provide any arguments of the court that it relied on when making the decision, as only the introductory and operative parts are provided. There is no reasoning part that would reveal the essence of the dispute, the positions of the parties, the rules of law applied by the court, and the justification for the decision made. Without the full text of the ruling, it is impossible to understand why the courts of previous instances sided with PROPAN-SERVICE LLC, and the Supreme Court agreed with their conclusions.<\/p>\n The court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv region. **Case No. 925\/1618\/24 of 12\/18\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the elimination of obstacles in the use of property and the return of property – the building of the St. Michael’s Church, which is a monument of national architectural significance.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court, when closing the appellate proceedings based on the application for withdrawal of the appeal, did not properly verify the authority of the person who filed this application. The appellate court did not examine the issue of the validity of the legal aid agreement between the religious organization and the attorney who filed the appeal, and also did not assess the attorney’s arguments regarding the validity of this agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that verifying the existence of proper authority of the signatory of the appeal is a primary procedural action of the appellate court, which precedes the resolution of any other procedural issues. Since the appellate court did not reliably ascertain the factual circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute, its conclusion that there are grounds for accepting the withdrawal of the appeal is premature.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for further consideration to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n **Case No. 160\/20031\/25 of 12\/18\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of a temporary restriction on the right to travel outside of Ukraine for the head of a debtor company.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the courts of previous instances to return the statement of claim to the tax authority, as it was established that the tax authority missed the three-month period for applying to the court, provided for in Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The court noted that the right to apply to the court with a demand to restrict the travel of the head of the enterprise arises for the tax authority 240 days after the delivery of the tax demand, and this period cannot be extended at the discretion of the tax authority. The court also emphasized that the establishment of deadlines for applying to the court disciplines participants in the judicial process and ensures legal certainty in public law relations. The court indicated that the tax authority’s arguments that the deadline for applying to the court has not expired, since the tax debt has not been repaid, are unfounded, since the law establishes a clear deadline for applying to the court from the moment such a right arises. The court also referred to the practice of the Supreme Court in similar cases, where the need to comply with the deadlines for applying to the court was confirmed.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the tax authority, leaving the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 620\/7369\/24 of 12\/17\/2025**<\/p>\n Subject The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, found that the appellate court had committed violations of procedural law that could have affected the correct establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the application of substantive law. In particular, the court of appeal did not fully examine the evidence provided by the parties and did not properly assess the arguments of the plaintiff. Also, according to the Supreme Court, the appellate court did not take into account important circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute. Given the above, the Supreme Court concluded that it was necessary to cancel the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal for a comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of all the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of “NOSIVKA AGRO” LLC, cancel the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal and send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/8511\/23 dated 12\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, namely Article 264 of the CAS of Ukraine, which regulates the peculiarities of proceedings in cases regarding the appeal of regulatory legal acts. The court of first instance, after increasing the claims, did not oblige the defendant to publish an announcement about the appeal of the relevant clauses of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which deprived other interested parties of the opportunity to participate in the case. The appellate court did not correct this violation. Considering that the courts did not investigate all the evidence collected in the case and made a decision on the rights and interests of persons who were not involved in the case, this made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 335\/7737\/20 dated 12\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, noting that the courts’ conclusions regarding the person’s guilt are based on a combination of evidence, in particular, witness testimony, expert opinions, and materials from investigative experiments. The court rejected the defense’s arguments about the inadmissibility of certain evidence, such as the protocol of the scene inspection and the protocols of recognition. 2. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding PERSON_7, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the defender and the convicted person.<\/p>\n Case No. 283\/4\/17-\u043a dated 09\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the appellate court regarding a person convicted of a criminal offense.<\/p>\n 2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide any arguments of the court. The text only shows that the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court and rejected the cassation appeal of the convicted person’s defender. The full text of the ruling, which will state the reasons for the decision, will be announced later. It is currently impossible to understand why the court came to this conclusion, what evidence was decisive, and whether the court deviated from any previous legal position.<\/p>\n 3. The judgment of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal was left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defender was dismissed.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/152\/25 dated 18\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) regarding the results of the qualification exam of a candidate for the position of judge of the appellate administrative court.<\/p>\n 2. The court justified its decision by the fact that the HQCJU acted within its powers defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and other regulations, in particular the Regulation on the Procedure for Conducting a Qualification Exam and the Methodology for Evaluating Candidates. The court noted that the HQCJU rightfully applied the evaluation criteria approved by it, and that the evaluation of the practical task is a discretionary power of the Commission, which the court has no right to interfere with, provided there are no violations of the procedure and the limits of powers. The court also took into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the discretionary powers of the HQCJU and the instructive nature of the Methodological Guidelines for Evaluating a Practical Task. The court emphasized that the anonymity of the qualification exam is a guarantee of objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the inconsistency of his works with the evaluation criteria and violation of the evaluation procedure, as they are not supported by evidence and are reduced to self-assessment.<\/p>\n 3. The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1.<\/p>\n Case No. 917\/538\/24 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, based on the fact that at the time of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings based on the application of LLC “Ferrostroy,” the ruling on the refusal to open proceedings based on the application of LLC “Star Investment Van” was valid, and therefore, there were no legal obstacles to opening proceedings based on a new application. The court noted that the norms of the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine regarding the simultaneous consideration of applications from different creditors do not apply if one of the applications has already been considered and a decision has been made to refuse to open proceedings on it. The court also took into account that the legitimate expectations regarding the appointment of an arbitration manager belong to the creditor whose application was first recognized as justified. The court emphasized the need to avoid multiple proceedings in bankruptcy cases of the same business entity and stressed the importance of resolving the issue of conducting bankruptcy procedures in only one case. The court rejected the motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, finding no exceptional legal problem.<\/p>\n 3. The court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 990\/163\/24 dated 12\/11\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) to refuse to recommend a person for appointment to the position of judge.<\/p>\n 2. The court, granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the decision of the HQCJU was insufficiently reasoned, since the Commission did not cite specific facts that would clearly give rise to a reasonable doubt as to the plaintiff’s compliance with the integrity criterion. The court noted that the mere fact of not indicating certain information in the declaration, regardless of the circumstances, cannot indicate the plaintiff’s bad faith attitude to filling out the declarations. The court also took into account the clarifications of the NACP regarding the non-declaration of property, the ownership of which is not registered, and the absence of an obligation to declare the income of adult children who live separately. The court emphasized that the Commission did not refute the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the impossibility of obtaining information from the former spouse for filling out the declaration. In addition, the court pointed out that the Commission did not assess the plaintiff’s explanations regarding LLC “TC “Ukraine” and did not refute them.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/31536\/23 dated 12\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by LLC “Pharmacy of Kyiv” of the provision of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which restricts the use of trademarks on the signs of pharmacy establishments. 3. The Court recognized as unlawful and invalid paragraph 6 of point 161 of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine regarding restrictions on the use of trademarks containing indications of prices, signs of prices, or that may mislead consumers, obliging the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to publish the relevant information.<\/p>\n Case No. 320\/3821\/20 dated 12\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Court, satisfying the claims of the Company, proceeded from the fact that the business transactions with “Innovative Systems of Progress” LLC were actually carried out, confirmed by proper primary documents, and related to the business activities of the Company, which used the purchased goods in its activities for the repair and modernization of military equipment. The Court noted that the tax authority did not provide sufficient evidence of the absence of actual performance of business transactions or the Company’s awareness of possible illegal actions of suppliers. The Court also took into account that the existence of criminal proceedings against the supplier’s counterparties is not an unconditional basis for recognizing transactions as unreal, especially in the absence of judgments or decisions that would establish the Company’s awareness of the illegal activities of the counterparties. The court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the principle of individual responsibility of the taxpayer and the need for the controlling body to prove the bad faith of the taxpayer’s actions. The Court also noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the previous conclusion on the incompatibility of the status of a fictitious enterprise with legal activity.<\/p>\n 3. The Court upheld the decisions of the previous courts, which satisfied the Company’s claim.<\/p>\n Case No. 200\/62\/24 dated 12\/18\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, upholding the appellate court’s decision to dismiss the claim without consideration, as the prosecutor cannot file a claim to compel the bringing of a protective structure into readiness, since there are other mechanisms for responding to violations in this area, such as administrative measures of influence or a claim for the application of response measures in the form of full or partial suspension of activities. The court emphasized that the interests of the state must be protected primarily by the relevant subjects of power, and the prosecutor plays a subsidiary role, replacing them only in exceptional cases when they do not provide protection or do so improperly. The court pointed out that the Civil Defense Code of Ukraine provides for a significant number of state bodies vested with powers in the field of population protection, and that the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU) has the power to control the condition of protective structures. The court also noted that granting SESU bodies the right to appeal to an administrative court only with demands for the application of response measures in the form of full or partial suspension of business entities indicates the exclusivity of the judicial method of protecting these public interests in the event of a threat to life and\/or health of people, while in other cases the application of administrative coercion measures is provided for.<\/p>\n 3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 915\/222\/24 dated 12\/19\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages from “Trade-Prim” LLC in favor of the military unit, which, according to the plaintiff, arose as a result of overpricing in a state contract for the supply of defense goods.<\/p>\n 2. The Supreme Court, considering the cassation appeal, focused on two key issues: whether the audit report of the State Audit Service can be proper evidence that a party to the contract is not the manufacturer of the goods, and whether the liability of the contractor in the form of compensation for damages for exceeding the maximum profit level was legally introduced at the time of the contract. The court emphasized that the audit report may be proper evidence, but should be assessed in conjunction with other evidence. Regarding liability for exceeding profits, the Court noted that although profit level restrictions were established by the CMU, it is important to establish the unlawful conduct of the contractor in concluding the contract, such as submitting a false calculation. The court also noted that for the recovery of damages, the presence of all elements of a civil offense is necessary, including unlawful conduct, damages, causation, and fault. 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.<\/p>\n Case No. 160\/12728\/24 dated 12\/17\/2025<\/strong><\/a> The court partially granted the cassation appeals of the tax authorities, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the application of penalties to “Comfy Trade” LLC for certain tax assessment notices. The court did not specify the specific arguments it relied on in making such a decision but indicated the need for a new consideration of the case regarding the canceled penalties by the court of first instance. This may be due to the need for a more detailed examination of the circumstances of the case, re-evaluation of evidence, or application of another rule of law. In the other part, where the penalties were not canceled, the court left the decision of the appellate instance unchanged, which may indicate agreement with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the legality of the accrual of tax liabilities.<\/p>\n The court ruled to partially satisfy the cassation appeals of the tax authorities, overturning the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the application of penalties and sending the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 283\/4\/17-\u043a dated 12\/09\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court, rejecting the defender’s cassation appeal. The court of cassation emphasized that it is not a court of fact and does not re-evaluate evidence but only verifies compliance with procedural rules and the standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The SC recognized the composition of the appellate court as lawful, indicating that the judge’s previous participation in the appellate review of the same case does not indicate his bias. The SC also rejected arguments about the inadmissibility of evidence, as the fact that the convicted person received money is confirmed by his own testimony. The SC noted that a search in the office did not require a warrant from an investigating judge, as the office premises are not private property. The SC agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of extortion of unlawful benefit, considering the nature of the communication, the meeting place, and other circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the verdict of the appellate court and dismiss the defender’s cassation appeal.<\/p>\n Case No. 1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a supply agreement concluded between LLC “Avion+” (debtor in the bankruptcy case) and LLC “Partner Distribution” (initiating creditor), on the grounds that the agreement was concluded with an interested party within three years prior to the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the courts of previous instances to dismiss the claim, but on other grounds. The courts of previous instances considered that at the time of the conclusion of the agreement (02\/24\/2020), LLC “Avion+” did not show signs of insolvency, and the amendments to the legislation regarding the restriction of the rights of interested creditors came into force only on 01\/01\/2025, therefore, they cannot be applied to this agreement. The Supreme Court, in turn, noted that even if the agreement is invalid, this will not lead to an effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights in the bankruptcy case, since it will not change the legal status of the parties regarding the return of funds, but only the legal basis of the obligation. The court emphasized that the claim to recognize a transaction as invalid is an effective method of protection only in combination with a claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, which was not declared in this case. Since the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection, the claim should be dismissed regardless of other circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n **Case No. 920\/1061\/23 (920\/518\/24) dated 12\/18\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual of debt for the supply of thermal energy services, inflation losses and 3% per annum.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the inadequate quality of the services provided, did not ascertain whether the quality of the service met the requirements established by law and the agreement, at the point of accounting, and also did not investigate the circumstances regarding the contamination of the heating system. The court noted that unauthorized disconnection from the heating system does not release from the obligation to pay for services if the disconnection was not carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law. Also, the court pointed out the erroneous conclusion of the court of first instance that there were no grounds for recalculating the cost of services in case of their inadequate quality, since such recalculation is provided for by law. The court emphasized the need to take into account the normative thermal load of the building when calculating the fee for thermal energy in the absence of commercial metering of thermal energy (heat meter).<\/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. 910\/10354\/21 dated 12\/16\/2025**<\/p>\n 1. Fo 2. The court of cassation reversed the decisions of the previous courts, emphasizing the need for a complete and comprehensive clarification of the case’s circumstances. In particular, the courts should have established: the full composition of the bank’s credit committee at the time of the investment decisions, the role of each of the defendants in causing the damage, the reasonableness of the investment decisions based on the information available at that time, and the existence of a causal link between the actions of the defendants and the bank’s insolvency. The court also pointed out the erroneous shifting of the burden of proof to the defendants and the courts’ insufficient assessment of the evidence provided by the plaintiff, in particular, the reports on the valuation of securities compiled a significant period after the disputed investments. The court emphasized the importance of establishing the purpose and economic feasibility of the acquisition of securities, as well as assessing the financial condition of the bank throughout the entire period of the disputed legal relations.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 927\/790\/22 dated 12\/10\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous courts, based on the following: first, Individual Entrepreneur Denysenko did not prove the fact of concluding a sale and purchase agreement for the equipment with Individual Entrepreneur Voroshilova, since he did not provide proper evidence of the agreement being signed specifically by Voroshilova, and the expert’s opinion was rejected due to the application of outdated methodologies; second, Denysenko did not provide originals of the agreements for gratuitous use of the equipment, which casts doubt on the fact of their conclusion; third, the previous courts applied the norms of law taking into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the conclusion\/non-conclusion of the agreement and the justification for rejecting the expert’s opinions; fourth, there are no legal grounds for forming the conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of making payment under the agreement by a party not to the agreement, since the sale and purchase agreement was recognized as unconcluded; fifth, the court of appeal reasonably rejected the motion to summon experts, involve a third party, and attach evidence, preventing violations of the norms of procedural law.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation closed the cassation proceedings in the part concerning the exclusive case provided for in paragraph 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and dismissed the cassation appeals in the other part, leaving the court decisions unchanged.<\/p>\n Case<\/strong><\/a>a \u2116920\/1471\/24(920\/738\/21) dated 18\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the application to replace the debtor in the enforcement proceedings, referring to the fact that the courts did not take into account the provisions of Part 3 of Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine “On Heat Supply”, which provides for a special type of legal succession for debt obligations of a business entity that previously used an integrated property complex for heat generation, to a new business entity that received such property for use. The court noted that the courts did not investigate the circumstances regarding the use by LLC “Boiler House of the Northern Industrial Hub” of the property complex of the Boiler House of the Northern Industrial Hub after its acquisition for heat generation, and also did not take into account that the ultimate beneficial owner of both the debtor and LLC “Boiler House of the Northern Industrial Hub” is the same person. The court emphasized that in such a case, the application of Part 3 of Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine “On Heat Supply” is fair, since the general property status of entities related to the same ultimate owner remains unchanged. The court also indicated that the criterion of “granting for use” in the meaning of this norm should be determined not only by the name of the transaction, but taking into account all significant circumstances, in particular, whether the relevant integrated property complex was used for heat generation before the change of the entity, whether the new entity carries out the same activity of heat generation using the specified complex, whether the transfer of control over the property complex is accompanied by the transfer of rights of claim to consumers of thermal energy, whether there was an actual change in the economic configuration of the group of companies to which the previous and new heat generating organizations belong, taking into account the person of the ultimate beneficial owner.<\/p>\n 3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 340\/6466\/24 dated 18\/12\/2025<\/strong><\/a> 2. The court of cassation considered the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the term for applying to the court with claims for recalculation and payment of monetary allowance. The court noted that in such cases, Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine should be applied, which establishes a three-month term for applying to the court from the day when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their right. The court deviated from previous conclusions regarding the application of Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine in the version in force at the time of applying to the court, emphasizing the need to take into account the period of occurrence of the dispute. 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 910\/3027\/24 (910\/9669\/21) dated December 9, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of LLC “Financial Company “Investohills Vesta” against the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the valuation of property in enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation established that the debtor in the enforcement proceedings challenges the property valuation report, arguing that it does not meet the requirements of the law, and the value of the real estate does not correspond to the market value, and provided a review of the valuation report. The court noted that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the issue of objectivity of the valuation, limiting themselves to stating that the complainant had not proven the unreliability of the valuation, and mistakenly referred to the fact that reviewing is possible only in cases where the bank is the creditor. Also, the courts did not take into account the debtor’s arguments that the order on the seizure of property was not issued within the enforcement proceedings, and about the calculation of the private enforcement officer’s fee from the wrong base. Considering that the courts did not establish all the circumstances of the case and did not examine important evidence, the Supreme Court cannot independently establish the relevant circumstances.<\/p>\n 3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n Case No. 922\/1909\/23 (922\/4494\/23) dated December 18, 2025<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n 1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages from LLC “Vovchanskyi KHP” in favor of FE “Bureichak” in connection with the illegal alienation of wheat grain, which, according to the plaintiff, was stored at the defendant’s premises.<\/p>\n 2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the claims of FE “Bureichak”, in view of the following: 3. The 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
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” in favor of LLC “Gallery Business Hall” of the advance payment and penalty due to violation of the terms of performance of work under the agreement on non-standard connection to power grids.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the audit committee of the Condominium “Olimpiyskyi” regarding the verification of charges for the maintenance of parking spaces, which, according to the plaintiff, violates her rights as the owner of a non-residential premise.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decisions of the Rivne Regional Council regarding the privatization of an administrative building and non-residential premises that are jointly owned by territorial communities.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the court’s decision to reject the additional creditor claims of PERSON_3 against “Vinnytsiaahroproektbud” LLC in the bankruptcy case, which include the value of the unpaid share in the authorized capital and the cost of services for assessing this share, as well as the appeal against the recognition of Private Entrepreneur Turbovets S.B. as a creditor with the right to a decisive vote.<\/p>\n
\nProceedings in a bankruptcy case change the method of exercising this right, transforming it into the right to a share in a possible liquidation balance. Also, the Supreme Court agreed that Individual Entrepreneur Turbovets S.B. is not an interested party, as there was insufficient evidence of his connection with the debtor, and PERSON_3 is an interested party, as he was a participant and official of the debtor, which gives grounds to believe that he could influence the activities of the enterprise. The court also noted that the absence of an approved annual report is not automatic evidence of abuse of rights by the debtor.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the rejection of monetary claims of Soufflet Agro Ukraine LLC against Vinnytsiaagroproektbud LLC in the case of the latter’s bankruptcy, which consist of losses caused by non-performance of contracts for the sale of the future corn harvest.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the Gas Distribution System Operator’s commission on additional charges to the consumer for unrecorded gas volume due to unauthorized connection of gas appliances.<\/p>\n
\nThe Gas Distribution System Operator (GDSO) did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the number and connection of gas appliances at the consumer’s premises during the inspection. The court also considered that the GDSO failed to prove the disproportionality of the consumer’s expenses for professional legal assistance, therefore, the reimbursement of these expenses is justified. The court of cassation emphasized the importance of adhering to the standard of proof “more likely than not,” according to which the party must provide evidence that would convince the court that the circumstances it relies on were more likely to have occurred than not.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute was the appeal against the verdict regarding a person convicted of receiving undue advantage, combined with extortion.<\/p>\n
\n2. The court, granting the appeal of the HCJ, noted that the HCJ, when evaluating candidates for the position of judge, has broad discretion, but its conclusions should not be arbitrary, irrational, unsupported by evidence, or factually incorrect. The court emphasized that the HCJ rightfully took into account additional information about the candidate that was not the subject of consideration by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) or that the HQCJ did not properly assess. In particular, the HCJ reasonably doubted the correspondence of the candidate’s standard of living to her income, considering the purchase of an apartment and the lack of sufficient evidence of the legality of the sources of funds. The HCJ also took into account the candidate’s failure to declare her husband’s income and her posts on socialin social networks, which expressed a contemptuous attitude towards Ukrainian statehood. The court emphasized that a candidate for the position of judge must demonstrate high standards of conduct, and the High Council of Justice has the right to assess the moral and ethical qualities of the candidate, taking into account their potential impact on public confidence in the judiciary.<\/p>\n
\nstructure and staffing, did not clarify whether all vacant positions were offered to the plaintiff, and did not assess the preferential right to remain employed in accordance with labor laws. The courts also failed to assess the plaintiff’s arguments that the appointment of other individuals to positions occurred before he was warned of dismissal, which violated his right to equal access to public service.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the executive committee of the city council’s decision to provide an apartment to a person with a disability as a result of war, who believes that the provided housing does not meet the requirements of the law and a previous court decision.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal of the district court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person convicted of intentional moderate bodily harm and illegal handling of weapons.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of decisions of the board and general meeting of the Gardening Association as invalid.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the appellate commercial court on the acceptance of the report of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Vinnytsia Oblast on the execution of a separate court order regarding the crediting of insurance contributions to an individual.<\/p>\n
\n1. 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 local court judge.<\/p>\n
\nof an information-analytical system regarding the absence of a criminal record, obtained no earlier than March 1, 2025, which was due to the need to verify the candidate’s compliance with the requirements of the law at the time of application. The plaintiff submitted an extract dated February 20, 2025, which did not meet the established requirement. The court noted that the requirement regarding the date of the extract is clear, understandable, does not impose an excessive burden on candidates, and ensures equality among selection participants. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments about the insignificance of the defect, as submitting an extract with a prior date makes it impossible to verify the candidate’s compliance with the requirements of the law on the day of application. The court agreed with the HQCJ that the plaintiff did not submit all the necessary documents that would confirm her compliance with the requirements of the law on the day of submitting the application for participation in the selection.<\/p>\n
\nleaving it unchanged, and the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of July 9, 2025 – without amendments.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal of the tax notification-decision issued by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Chernihiv region regarding “NOSIVKA AGRO” LLC.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against certain provisions of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine regarding the indexation of pension payments, in particular, the limitation of the maximum amount of pension increase and the fixed amount of such increase.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person for murder and attempted murder.<\/p>\n
\nknowledge, as well as about violations during the investigative experiment involving a minor witness. The court also emphasized that the defense did not provide sufficient evidence to support the version that the injuries to the victim were inflicted by another person, and the convicted person himself refused to provide samples for examination. In addition, the court of cassation agreed with the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the imposed punishment, noting that they correspond to the severity of the committed crimes and the person of the convicted person.<\/p>\n
\nRegarding the dispute is the lawfulness of opening bankruptcy proceedings against LLC “Cogeneration Company” based on the application of LLC “Ferrostroy,” filed after the court refused to open proceedings based on the application of another creditor, but this decision was appealed.<\/p>\n
\n2. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, overturning the decisions of lower courts. The Court noted that the licensing conditions prohibiting the use of a trademark on a pharmacy sign if it contains an indication of prices, signs of prices, or may mislead consumers, are unlawful, as they duplicate the requirements of legislation on the protection of rights to trademarks for goods and services and restrict the lawful use of a registered trademark. The Court emphasized that establishing additional requirements for trademarks that have already undergone examination and received certificates contradicts the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. At the same time, the court recognized as lawful the provision regarding the permission to use the name of the licensee, pharmacy institution, and\/or trademark on the sign, as this does not restrict the plaintiff’s rights.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of tax assessment notices, which increased the tax liability for VAT and decreased the amount of negative VAT value of the Company.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Communal Non-Commercial Enterprise “Pokrovsk City Hospit
\nregarding the failure to take measures for the proper maintenance of a civil defense protective structure \u2013 an anti-radiation shelter by the “\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0456\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0436\u0438\u0442\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043e-\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0433\u043e\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430”, Pokrovsk City Council of Donetsk Oblast, and the Pokrovsk City Military Administration of Pokrovsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast.<\/p>\n
\nThe court stated that the courts of previous instances did not fully examine all the circumstances of the case and did not properly assess the evidence, which led to the incorrect application of substantive and procedural law.<\/p>\n
\nThe subject of the dispute is the appeal by “Comfy Trade” LLC against tax assessment notices issued by tax authorities.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of the appellate court, which found the investigator guilty of receiving unlawful benefit (bribe) for not bringing a person to criminal responsibility.<\/p>\n
\n**Case No. 903\/534\/23 (903\/78\/25) dated 12\/11\/2025**<\/p>\n
\nRegarding ensuring deposits of individuals, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused to “Artem-Bank” by its related parties due to investment in low-quality securities.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession and the recognition of ownership of heat-generating equipment, as well as a counterclaim for the recognition of the invalidity of the sale and purchase agreement for this equipment.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of a party in the enforcement proceedings, namely the debtor, due to legal succession in debt obligations for payment of consumed energy resources.<\/p>\n
\n1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the defendant regarding the recalculation and payment of monetary allowance to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
\nof legal relations. The court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not determine the date when the plaintiff learned or should have learned about the violation of their right to proper monetary allowance for each month of the disputed period. The court emphasized the importance of clarifying whether the defendant fulfilled the obligation to inform the plaintiff about the components of the monetary allowance, as provided for by Article 110 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, and when the plaintiff received documented information about the amounts paid.<\/p>\n
\n * The courts of previous instances came to the erroneous conclusion that there were contractual legal relations between the parties regarding the storage of grain, since the transfer of grain to the defendant’s warehouses, as claimed by the plaintiff, took place during the period of temporary occupation and suspension of the enterprise’s economic activity.
\n * The courts did not give a proper legal assessment to all the evidence and arguments provided by the parties to the case, did not examine all the evidence collected in the case, and did not establish all the essential factual circumstances of this case related to them, which were included in the subject of proof.
\n * The courts did not take into account that the assessment of evidence in their entirety means
\nverifying their interrelation, consistency, and sufficiency, however, the court cannot recognize a certain circumstance as proven if none of them confirms the existence of this fact, since the set of evidence is not independent evidence.
\n * The courts failed to properly assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the circumstances of the activities of the head of the “Bureichak” farm during the period of the temporary occupation of the city of Vovchansk, in particular, regarding his illegal appointment by the occupation authorities as the temporary administrator of agricultural enterprises.
\n * The court of cassation noted that the disputed relations, if there is evidence of the actual location of the property belonging to the plaintiff in the possession of the defendant, may be qualified under Chapter 83 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, but such qualification in this case requires the examination of the evidence available in the case in this light and providing the parties to the dispute with the opportunity to present their arguments and considerations on this issue.<\/p>\n