Case No. 824/11/26 dated 02/07/2026
Unfortunately, I cannot analyze the court decision because you have not provided the text of the document or a link to it. Please provide the content of the decision so that I can provide you with a professional legal analysis in accordance with your request.
Case No. 824/11/26 dated 02/07/2026
Unfortunately, I cannot analyze the court decision because you have not provided the text of the document or a link to it. Please provide the text of the decision, and I will immediately prepare a professional analysis for you in accordance with your requirements.
Case No. 914/2531/25 dated 07/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Alltech” for the invalidation and cancellation of the decision of the Western Interregional Territorial Branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee acted within the scope of their authority and in compliance with the procedure defined by the legislation on the protection of economic competition. The Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances, finding no violations that could constitute grounds for overturning the challenged acts. The court concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the legality of the findings of the lower instances regarding the legality of the AMCU decision. It was also confirmed that the factual circumstances of the case were established by the courts fully and comprehensively, and the assessment of evidence meets the requirements of economic procedural legislation. As a result, the panel of judges found no legal grounds for reassessing the evidence that had already been subject to examination in the lower instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of LLC “Alltech” and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 924/784/25 dated 07/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Investbud-2016” for the invalidation and cancellation of certain clauses of the decision of the territorial branch of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, by which sanctions were applied to the plaintiff.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee acted within the powers granted to them by law and in compliance with the evidence-gathering procedure. The Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts and found no violations that could constitute grounds for overturning the challenged decisions. The court emphasized that the appellant’s arguments essentially amount to a request for a reassessment of evidence, which goes beyond the authority of the cassation instance. It was also confirmed that the facts of the violation of competition law established by the AMCU were properly reflected in the case materials. Given the abs-the essence of the grounds for the conclusion regarding the illegality of the actions of the antimonopoly authority, the court reached a conclusion regarding the legality and validity of the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of Investbud-2016 LLC without satisfaction, and the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 904/5571/24 dated 07/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the appeal by the Regional Office of Water Resources against a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, by which certain sanctions or orders were imposed on the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal, concluded that the lower courts had committed violations of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the case. In particular, the courts did not provide a proper legal assessment of all the arguments of the parties and did not fully examine the evidence to which the participants in the proceedings referred to substantiate their positions. The cassation instance emphasized the need to adhere to the principle of completeness and comprehensiveness of judicial proceedings, which was not ensured in this case. The Court noted that for the correct application of substantive law, it is first necessary to clearly establish the circumstances of the case, which requires additional examination of evidence in the court of first instance. Since the Supreme Court is deprived of the right to independently collect or re-evaluate evidence, it did not have the opportunity to make a new decision on the merits of the dispute. Therefore, to eliminate the committed errors and ensure the right to a fair trial, the case was returned for a new trial.
The Supreme Court cancelled the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.
Case No. 646/2603/24 dated 03/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the method of a father’s participation in the upbringing of and communication with his minor son, who resides separately with the mother, and the removal of obstacles to such communication.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the priority of best ensuring the interests of the child, which includes the child’s right to regular communication with both parents. The court emphasized that parents have equal rights and duties regarding upbringing, and the parent with whom the child resides has no right to create obstacles if the communication does not harm the child’s development. When making the decision, the appellate court took into account the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority, the child’s state of health, and the need for the gradual restoration of emotional contact between the father and the son. The court of cassation emphasized that the established schedule of visitation is balanced and does not create an excessive burden on the child. The mother’s arguments regarding the impossibility of communication due to the child’s state of health were rejectedas the courts of lower instances have already provided them with a proper assessment. The Supreme Court also noted that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider certain circumstances are an attempt to review the factual data established by the courts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which established the schedule for the father’s visitation and communication with the child.
Case No. 904/52/23 of 06/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor applied to the court in the interests of the state and the territorial community with a demand to cancel the order of the State Geocadastre, the decision on state registration of rights, and to recover a land plot of the nature reserve fund from the illegal possession of private companies.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that land plots within nature reserve fund objects have a special legal regime and cannot be in private ownership. The court emphasized the principle of *jura novit curia* (“the court knows the law”), according to which the court is not limited by the literal interpretation of the claims and must independently provide a legal qualification of the relations. Although the prosecutor chose a vindication claim (recovery of property from another’s illegal possession), the court determined that for the protection of rights to nature reserve fund lands, which the state has not actually lost, the appropriate method is a negatory claim (removal of obstacles in use). The Supreme Court emphasized that a formal refusal by the appellate court to satisfy the claim solely due to the prosecutor’s incorrect classification of the method of protection is unacceptable, as it does not ensure the actual restoration of violated rights. Therefore, the court, acting actively, reclassified the claim to the return of the plot to the territorial community, which allows for the achievement of the goals of justice. At the same time, the court refused to cancel the order and registration entries, as this is not necessary for the return of the land to the owner.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and rendered a new decision on the return of the land plot to the territorial community, leaving the remaining claims unsatisfied.
Case No. 495/1975/24 of 07/06/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The applicant applied to the court with a request to be released from the duties of a guardian over her incapacitated son and for the appointment of her other son, who is currently serving in the military, as the guardian.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the applicant has the right to be released from the duties of a guardian due to health reasons, which was granted.
* Regarding the appointment of a newof the guardian, the court emphasized that the primary criterion is to ensure the best interests of the incapacitated person, who requires constant third-party care due to severe intellectual disability.
* The court established that the candidate for guardianship is performing military service in another locality, which objectively makes it impossible for him to provide daily care for the ward.
* The Supreme Court, in this case, deviated from its previous position, noting that the fact of mobilization in itself is not an automatic ground for refusing to appoint a guardian; however, the court is obligated to assess the person’s real ability to perform the functions of a guardian, rather than merely their formal compliance with the requirements of the law.
* The court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian must take into account the person’s ability to ensure the living conditions and medical treatment of the ward, which a mobilized candidate cannot guarantee at this time.
* Consequently, until the possibility of providing actual care arises, the court lawfully assigned the duties of the guardian to the guardianship and custody authority.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the applicant was relieved of her duties as a guardian, but the appointment of her son, a military serviceman, as guardian was denied at this time.
Case No. 607/199/24 dated 07/03/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by a daughter against her father to deprive him of parental rights due to his alleged evasion of parental duties.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is an exceptional and extreme measure, applied only in the presence of culpable behavior and conscious neglect of duties.
– It was established that the conflict between the father and the child was largely driven by external factors, in particular, a prolonged conflict with relatives and the child’s own unwillingness to initiate contact.
– The court took into account that the father had attempted to establish a connection and had made efforts to provide financial support, which refutes the arguments regarding complete abandonment of upbringing.
– The fact that the child does not wish to communicate with the father is not, in itself, a sufficient ground for deprivation of parental rights, as this is not always a consequence solely of the father’s fault.
– The court critically evaluated the conclusion of the guardianship and custody authority, noting that it lacked sufficient motivation and analysis of the circumstances that would indicate the impossibility of preserving family ties.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that parental rights are derived from the interests of the child; however, the severance of family ties is possible only in extremely exceptional cases, which were not established in this matter.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the trial and appellate courts to deny the satisfaction of the claim.
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Review of a court verdict based on newly discovered circumstances and an appeal against procedural violations committed during the formation of the composition of the appellate court.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances is not a retrial of the case on its merits, but is aimed exclusively at verifying the existence of circumstances that were not known to the court at the time the verdict was rendered.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the replacement of judges in the panel took place in accordance with the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine and the internal principles of the court, in particular due to judges’ vacations and the need to comply with procedural deadlines.
– Regarding the participation of judges from the civil chamber, the court noted that the involvement of such judges in criminal proceedings is permissible if it is impossible to form a panel exclusively from judges of the criminal chamber, which is in compliance with the internal regulations of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.
– The court rejected the arguments of the convicted person regarding the illegality of Judge OSOBA_8’s participation, as no actual consideration of the case on the merits had taken place with their participation prior to the issuance of the challenged ruling, and the convicted person had not filed any challenges (recusals) during the court session.
– The Supreme Court found the complaints regarding technical problems during the video conference to be unfounded, as the convicted person and their defense counsel did not inform the court of these obstacles during the session itself.
– The court emphasized that the convicted person failed to prove exactly how the alleged violations affected the legality and validity of the rendered decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person and left the rulings of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 465/2714/14-k of 06/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal to request a criminal case file for cassation review due to the submitted appeal’s non-compliance with the requirements of the procedural law.
A judge of the Criminal Cassation Court concluded that the submitted cassation appeal did not meet the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 1960, under which the proceedings were conducted. Specifically, the applicant did not specify the concrete grounds for overturning the court decision provided for by Article 398 of the 1960 CPC, and did not substantiate exactly in what the illegality of the appellate court’s ruling consisted. Furthermore, the appeal lacked a clearly formulated request to the court of cassation instance. The court also drew attention to the applicant’s erroneous reference to the provisions of the 2012 CPC, which are not applicable to this case. An important procedural point is that the 1960 CPC does not provide for a procedure to stay a cassation appeal for the correction of defects, as is possible under the current code. At the same time, the court clarified that such a refusal is not final and the applicant has the right to re-submit.to apply to the court, provided that the specified deficiencies are remedied within the time limit established by law.
The Court ruled to deny the request for the retrieval of the criminal case upon the cassation appeal of PERSON_2.
Case No. 917/1001/25 dated 07/07/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 3,045,083.13 from a company and an individual in favor of a banking institution.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the necessity to comply with procedural norms governing the procedure for cassation appeal. Specifically, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no grounds for staying the proceedings in the case upon the defendant’s motion. Regarding the ground for appeal provided for in clause 1 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Court determined that the appellant had not provided proper justification as to how exactly the courts of lower instances failed to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar legal relations, which became the basis for closing the proceedings in this part. Regarding the part of the appeal concerning clause 3 of part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (absence of a conclusion of the Supreme Court regarding the application of a rule of law), the Court found the appellant’s arguments groundless. The Court concluded that the challenged decisions were adopted with the correct application of substantive law and compliance with procedural law. Thus, there were no legal grounds for overturning the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court denied the motion to stay the proceedings, closed the cassation proceedings in part, and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 607/9097/20 dated 24/06/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the correct procedure for sentencing for a combination of criminal offenses, where some were committed before and others after the rendering of a previous judgment, in particular in cases of “broken” recidivism of identical crimes.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the legal conclusions of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which previously provided for the non-application of the rules of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code to identical offenses. The Court emphasized that the legislator did not provide for exceptions to the sentencing rules depending on whether the offenses are identical, homogeneous, or heterogeneous. The key criterion for the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code is exclusively the time factor — the commission of a crime before the rendering of a previous judgment. The Grand Chamber established a clear step-by-step mechanism for sentencing: first for each offense separately, then for the combination of those committed before the judgment, subsequently the application of Part 4 of Article 70 of the Criminal Code, after that for the combination of those committed after the judgment, and finally, for the combination of judgments under Article 71 of the Criminal Code. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principles of individualization of punishment and legal certainty. Furthermore, the court…found the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations for prosecution under Part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code to be well-founded, which required the amendment of court decisions in this part.
3. The Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person and fully satisfied the appeal of the prosecutor, amending the court decisions regarding the determination of the final sentence and releasing the convicted person from punishment under Part 1 of Article 353 of the Criminal Code due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Case No. 990SСGС/8/26 dated 02/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice, which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber to hold a judge disciplinarily liable.
When rendering this decision, the Court was guided by the principle of legality and verified compliance with the procedure of disciplinary proceedings against the judge. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed whether there were grounds for holding the judge liable and whether the imposed sanction corresponded to the gravity of the committed misconduct. The Court concluded that the High Council of Justice acted within its powers defined by law and duly substantiated its findings. The arguments of the appellant regarding the violation of his rights during the disciplinary proceedings were not confirmed during the court proceedings. The Court also took into account that the disciplinary liability of a judge is a necessary mechanism for ensuring trust in the judiciary and adherence to judicial ethics. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for overturning the challenged decision, as it was adopted in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the judge’s appeal and left the decision of the High Council of Justice unchanged.
Case No. 990/132/26 dated 02/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief professional analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appeal against the refusal of the court of first instance to open proceedings regarding an individual’s lawsuit against the High Council of Justice (HCJ) to overturn the ruling of the Disciplinary Chamber on the return of a disciplinary complaint against a judge’s actions.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Court emphasized that the right to judicial protection is not absolute and requires the existence of a real violation of a person’s rights that is subject to judicial protection.
– It was established that the current legislation (in particular, the Law “On the High Council of Justice”) explicitly provides that rulings on the return of a disciplinary complaint are not subject to appeal.
– The Grand Chamber reaffirmed its established practice, according to which a complainant is not a direct participant in disciplinary legal relations, since decisions of the HCJ regarding the disciplinary liability of a judge create legal consequences for the judge, not for the person who initiated the complaint.
– The Court noted that the restriction of the right to appeal such rulings is proportionate, pursues aa legitimate aim and does not deprive a person of access to justice as a whole.
– The court of first instance correctly applied the norms of procedural law by refusing to open proceedings, as such a dispute is not subject to consideration under administrative court procedure.
– The Grand Chamber found no grounds to depart from its previous practice, to which the plaintiff referred, since the appellant’s arguments did not contain new justifications capable of changing the court’s legal position.
3. **Court decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 902/1232/24 dated 07/07/2026
The subject of the dispute in this case is a claim by the Small Private Enterprise — Firm “Med” to invalidate a decision adopted by the Joint-Stock Company “Vinnytsiaoblenerho”.
The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal of the power supply company, concluded that significant violations of procedural law were committed during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation established that the court of appeal did not fully examine all the circumstances of the case and did not provide a proper legal assessment of the parties’ arguments, which is mandatory for rendering a lawful and reasoned decision. In particular, the requirements regarding the comprehensive clarification of factual data, which are of decisive importance for resolving the dispute on the merits, were ignored. The Supreme Court emphasized that failure to adhere to procedural standards when assessing evidence makes it impossible to establish the truth in the case. Therefore, in order to eliminate the identified deficiencies and ensure the parties’ right to a fair trial, the case must be returned for a new review to the appellate instance. Such an approach ensures compliance with the principle of the rule of law and the proper administration of justice.
The court granted the cassation appeal of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenerho”, set aside the ruling of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new review to the North-western Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 911/3649/25 dated 01/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court’s return of the statement of claim filed by a third party, who attempted to enter the case concerning the collection of credit debt with a claim to invalidate a suretyship agreement.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that for a third party to enter a case with independent claims, the criterion of a single subject of the dispute must be met, which was not done in this case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the subject of the dispute in the initial lawsuit is the performance of obligations under a credit agreement, whereas the third party attempted to challenge the suretyship agreement, which is a separate substantive legal object. The court distinguished between the concepts of “subject of the lawsuit” and “subject of the dispute,” noting that
