Case №2/299 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the Main Department of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv (hereinafter referred to as the MD STS) regarding the execution of a court order on the recovery of expenses for legal assistance.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of previous instances, motivating this by the fact that the MD STS is not a body of compulsory execution of decisions within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, but performs the functions of indisputable debiting of funds on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Execution of Court Decisions”. The court noted that the actions or inaction of the Treasury authorities related to the execution of court decisions on the recovery of funds have the characteristics of a public law dispute and are subject to consideration in the procedure of administrative proceedings, and not economic proceedings. Commercial courts do not have jurisdiction to hear complaints against the actions of the Treasury authorities. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has already expressed a similar position in other cases.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances and closed the proceedings in the case, pointing out the need to consider the dispute in the procedure of administrative proceedings.
Case №550/1079/21 dated 06/04/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the land lease agreement due to its misuse by the lessee.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the use of the land plot for other than its intended purpose is the basis for termination of the lease agreement and return of the plot to the owner, referring to Article 629 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Land Lease” and paragraph “a” of the first part of Article 143 of the Land Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the contract is binding on the parties, and the lessee is obliged to use the land plot in accordance with the terms of the contract and the requirements of land legislation. The court also noted that the court of appeal mistakenly took into account the acts of the commission of the executive committee of the settlement council, which did not relate to the period of violation recorded in the inspection report. At the same time, the court recognized the claims for cancellation of the state registration of the lease right and its termination as inappropriate methods of protection, since the decision to terminate the lease agreement is the basis for making appropriate changes to the State Register of Real Property Rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of refusing to satisfy the claims for termination of the lease agreement and the obligation to return the land plot, leavingand upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy these claims, and also changed the reasoning part of the appellate court’s decision regarding the refusal to cancel the state registration of the lease right and the termination of this right.
Case No. 287/770/21 dated 07/22/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the closure of criminal proceedings by the court of first instance due to the expiration of the terms of pre-trial investigation, and the validity of leaving this decision unchanged by the appellate court.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which supported the closure of criminal proceedings, since the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence of notification of the defense about the completion of the pre-trial investigation within the terms established by the Criminal Procedure Code. The court noted that the fact of completion of the pre-trial investigation must be duly confirmed, as well as the fact of informing the defense about this information. It is important that the indictment is not only drawn up, approved and handed over, but also sent to the court within the term of the pre-trial investigation. The court emphasized that the parties have equal rights to collect and submit evidence, and the prosecution is obliged to prove proper notification of the completion of the investigation. Since no such evidence was provided, the court found the closure of the proceedings justified.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling.
Case No. 564/1086/20 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for intentional homicide (Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The court of cassation upheld the judgment and ruling, emphasizing that the guilt of the convicted person was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on a combination of evidence, including witness testimonies, scene inspection reports, and expert opinions. The court noted that the witness testimonies are logical and consistent with other evidence, and the arguments of the defense about the failure to establish the motive and purpose of the crime are unfounded, since the court established that the murder occurred on the basis of personal animosity. The court also rejected the arguments about the need to appoint a comprehensive examination, since the defense did not substantiate such a need and did not file a corresponding motion in the courts of previous instances. The court of cassation emphasized that the imposed punishment is fair, taking into account the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the case, and the appellate courtdiligently verified all the arguments of the appeal.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense counsel.
Case No. 758/10410/22 dated 07/28/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of property rights to an unfinished construction object, namely a two-room apartment.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court that the plaintiff had applied to an improper defendant, since the property rights to the construction object had been transferred from LLC “Company “Budinvest Capital” to the Servicing Cooperative “Residential Complex “INFORMATION_1”, which is the owner of the unfinished construction object. The court noted that it was between the plaintiff and the SC “Residential Complex “INFORMATION_1” that a dispute arose regarding the real estate object, but the plaintiff did not file a motion to involve the SC “Residential Complex “INFORMATION_1” in the case as a co-defendant. The court emphasized that establishing the proper defendants is the duty of the court during the consideration of the case, and filing a claim against an improper defendant is an independent basis for dismissing the claim. The court also took into account that it had already considered a case with similar legal relations, where the SC “Residential Complex “INFORMATION_1” was recognized as a proper defendant.
3. The court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 and to leave the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 922/35/22 dated 07/15/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the decision of the Kharkiv City Council on the privatization of a non-residential premises by redemption by the tenant as illegal, the recognition of the purchase and sale agreement of this premises as invalid, the cancellation of the state registration of ownership and the obligation to return the premises to communal ownership.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the Kharkiv City Council illegally chose the method of privatization of communal property by redemption by the tenant, since the tenant did not make inseparable improvements to the property that would give him the right to redemption. However, the courts of previous instances concluded that the prosecutor had missed the limitation period for appealing the purchase and sale agreement, applying the special three-month period provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of State and Communal Property”. The court of cassation confirmed the correctness of the application by the courts of previous instances of the provisions of the Law on Privatization regarding the statute of limitations. Also, the court of cassation emphasized
stipulated that the claim for the return of property transferred in performance of an invalid transaction should be considered under the rules of restitution, which provides for the application of special limitation periods. The court of cassation rejected the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the need to deviate from previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, as sufficient grounds for such deviation were not provided.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances.
Case No. 521/1540/23 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for a criminal offense under Part 1 of Article 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (hooliganism).
2. The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, presumably agreed with their conclusions regarding the proof of the person’s guilt in committing hooligan acts. The court presumably did not find any significant violations of the criminal procedure law that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decisions. Also, all the circumstances of the case were possibly taken into account, including the nature of the offense, information about the convicted person, and the arguments presented by the defense in the cassation appeal. The rejection of the cassation appeal indicates that the court of cassation did not establish grounds for quashing or amending the appealed court decisions.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the district court and the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 357/11021/23 dated 07/24/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the cancellation of the state registration of the termination of the right to lease a land plot, recognition of an additional agreement to the land lease agreement as concluded, and recognition of the absence of the right to lease a land plot.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances on the dismissal of the claim, as LLC “Agrofirma “Bilotserkivska” did not prove the existence of a violated preferential right to renew the land lease agreement, taking into account the lessor’s advance notice of unwillingness to continue the lease relationship. The court noted that the right to lease arises from the moment of state registration, and the provisions on automatic renewal of land lease agreements were in effect only until November 19, 2022. The court also took into account that the lease agreement between the parties expired on December 5, 2022, i.e., after the termination of the provision on automatic renewal. In addition, с
The court of cassation instance reduced the amount of expenses for professional legal assistance, which are subject to recovery from the plaintiff in favor of the defendants, taking into account the criteria of reality of the services provided, the reasonableness of their amount, and the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous instances, partially satisfying the defendants’ claims for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance in the court of cassation instance.
Case No. 369/8241/23 dated July 28, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of jointly owned property of spouses, recognition of property as personal private property, and a counterclaim for the division of jointly owned property.
2. The court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff in the initial claim (former wife) refuted the presumption of joint ownership of the spouses regarding the land plot and residential building, providing evidence that the funds for their purchase were donated to her by her father, and therefore this property is her personal private property. The court also took into account that the husband consented to the acquisition of this property by the wife on her terms. Regarding the SSANG YONG car, the court noted that it was sold during the marriage with the consent of the parties, and the husband did not claim compensation for the value. Regarding the funds from the sale of the VAZ car and the quad bike, the court found that they were transferred to the wife and spent in the interests of the family, and the husband did not provide evidence to the contrary. Also, the court rejected the husband’s arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the dispute arose later than the date of acquisition of the property.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
Case No. 686/20864/19 dated July 24, 2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the insurance company’s appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance in the criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person in committing a traffic accident and a drug crime.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which refused to reinstate the term for the insurance company to appeal the judgment. The court noted that the representative of the insurance company was aware of the case proceedings, had the opportunity to track its progress through online resources, and received a copy of the judgment long before filing the appeal. At the same time, the court emphasized that valid reasons for missing the deadline are only circumstances that objectively made it impossible to apply to the court in a timely manner, and a large number of cases with the representative is not such a validwhich was the reason. The court also took into account that the representative of the insurance company initially filed only a motion to renew the term, and then already an appeal, which indicates delay. The court of cassation emphasized that the appellate court acted within its discretionary powers, reasonably refusing to renew the term, and this does not violate the principle of legal certainty.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the appellate court, and the cassation appeal of the insurance company was dismissed.
Case №753/11042/22 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 under Part 1 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (treason).
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts, because it believes that the right to a fair trial was violated due to the fact that the court of first instance refused the defender of the accused, which was considered under the procedure in absentia, to satisfy the motion for a collegial consideration of the case. The court noted that although usually the right to petition for a collegial review belongs only to the accused, in the case of in absentia proceedings, when the accused is physically absent, the defense counsel has the right to file such a petition in the interests of the client. Refusal of such a petition limits the possibilities of defense and casts doubt on the effectiveness of the defense, which is a violation of the conventional guarantees of a fair trial. The court emphasized that in in absentia proceedings, the defense counsel must be given a real opportunity to exercise the procedural rights of the accused, otherwise these rights become declarative.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance.
Case №522/10355/21 dated 06/05/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the release of a person from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
2. The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and released PERSON_8 from criminal liability on the basis of the expiration of the statute of limitations, taking into account the period when PERSON_8 was wanted for evading the court. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision, noting that for the application of the provisions on evasion of the court, proven facts of intentional actions aimed at avoiding criminal liability and the existence of a procedural decision to suspend proceedings are necessary. The court of cassation emphasized that failure to appear in court sessions in itself does not indicate evasion
to the court if there is no evidence of proper notification of the person about the date, time, and place of court hearings. The Supreme Court also took into account that after the proceedings were resumed, the court of first instance did not suspend them again due to the defendant’s evasion, but continued the case with his participation.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling and dismissed the victim’s representative’s cassation appeal.
Case №461/3407/24 dated 07/23/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a notary’s writ of execution as not subject to execution.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts, reasoning that a loan agreement that was not notarized was provided to the notary for the execution of the writ of execution, which is a violation of the established requirements. The court took into account that at the time of the execution of the writ of execution, the edition of the list of documents was in effect, according to which a notarized agreement was required to recover debt under a loan agreement. The court also referred to the постанову Великої Палати Верховного Суду [resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court], which states that a regulatory legal act loses its force from the moment the relevant court decision enters into legal force. In addition, the court of cassation took into account that the previous courts did not pay attention to the circumstances indicated by the plaintiff and decided the case with the incorrect application of substantive law. The court also partially satisfied the plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, taking into account the defendant’s objections and the criteria for proportionality of expenses.
3. The court granted the cassation appeal and recognized the notary’s writ of execution as not subject to execution.
Case №523/18031/23 dated 07/29/2025
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the order to transfer an employee to another position under martial law and reinstatement to the previous position.
2. The court of cassation supported the decision of the court of appeal, noting that under martial law, the employer has the right to transfer employees to other jobs to eliminate the consequences of hostilities, and such a transfer was justified, since there was a threat to the employee’s life at the previous place of work due to damage to infrastructure as a result of hostilities. The court also took into account that the employee was informed about the transfer, did not express disagreement in writing, and began to perform new duties. The court noted that the absence of the employee’s written disagreement with the transfer indicates his consent to continue working in the new conditions.
