Case No. 991/2538/25 dated 06/24/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 991/2538/25:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaring assets (a vehicle and four real estate properties) as unjustified and their forfeiture to the state due to the impossibility of confirming their acquisition through lawful income of a person authorized to perform state functions.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant (a State Tax Service official) is a subject covered by anti-corruption legislation, and the assets were acquired after the entry into force of the relevant law.
* The court concluded that there is a stable factual connection between the official, his wife, and the disputed assets, despite the fact that they were legally registered in the name of his mother-in-law and close acquaintances.
* The court recognized that the actual management of the property, communication with service organizations, and payment of utility bills were carried out by the official’s wife, which indicates control over the assets by the defendant’s family.
* The court analyzed the family’s income and established a significant discrepancy between official income and the value of the purchased property, rejecting the defendants’ version regarding the existence of cash savings inherited or received from relatives due to the lack of proper evidence.
* The court critically evaluated the expert opinion provided by the defendants, as it was based on a mechanical calculation of income without taking into account the family’s actual expenses and did not prove the existence of actual savings.
* The court applied the “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof, finding the prosecutor’s version regarding the concealment of assets through third parties more plausible than the defendants’ version regarding the independent acquisition of property with lawful funds.
3. **Court ruling:** The court partially granted the claim, declaring the assets unjustified and ordering their forfeiture to the state, while denying the request for joint and several recovery.
Case No. 522/2774/24 dated 07/22/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance convicting a person for committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 3 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment, or sale of narcotic drugs).
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of verifying the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the appellate court. The court analyzed the arguments of the defense attorney’s cassation appeal for the presence of significant violations of criminal procedural law that could have affected the legality and justification of the contested decision. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court, within its powers, had properly examined the case files and the arguments of the appeal, providing them with a reasoned assessment. The court did not establish anygrounds for setting aside or amending the ruling of the appellate court, as the court’s conclusions regarding the person’s guilt are based on evidence examined during the court hearing. No procedural violations that would entail the mandatory setting aside of the court decision were identified. Consequently, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, and the challenged decision was found to comply with the requirements of criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 824/147/25 of 23/07/2026
The subject of the dispute is the consideration of an application by NAVITEC Sp. z o.o. to set aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the recovery from it in favor of a military unit of the National Guard of Ukraine of over 795 thousand euros in debt.
The Supreme Court, while reviewing the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, focused on verifying compliance with procedural standards during the consideration of the application to set aside the arbitration award. The Court concluded that the grounds relied upon by the debtor to set aside the arbitration award were not confirmed during the judicial proceedings. The arbitral tribunal acted within its competence, and the case proceedings complied with the requirements of legislation and the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the interference of state courts in the decisions of international commercial arbitration is limited and possible only in exceptional cases provided for by law. As the applicant failed to prove the existence of violations of public policy or other critical procedural errors, there are no grounds for setting aside the arbitration award. Thus, the decision of the appellate court, which denied the debtor’s claims, was deemed lawful and well-founded.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of NAVITEC Sp. z o.o. and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
Case No. 686/28457/21 of 23/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal by a prosecutor against an acquittal and the ruling of the appellate court regarding a person accused of fraud and incitement to provide an undue advantage, due to disagreement with the courts’ conclusion regarding the provocation of a crime by law enforcement agencies.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that, according to ECHR case law, incitement occurs when law enforcement officers do not limit themselves to passive investigation but actively induce a person to commit a crime that would not have been committed without their interference.
– It was established that law enforcement agencies had systematically contacted the applicant long before the official start of the proceedings, coordinated his actions, and prompted him to be the initiator of communication with the accused.
– The case files did not contain any[cont.] of evidence that the accused initiated the criminal actions; on the contrary, he avoided the contacts insisted upon by the applicant under the control of special services.
– The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the collected evidence was deemed inadmissible due to the artificial creation of a crime situation (entrapment).
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court rightfully refused to re-examine the evidence, as the prosecutor failed to justify in what exactly the incompleteness of their examination by the court of first instance consisted.
– In summary, the panel of judges concluded that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the existence of sufficient evidence of guilt are groundless.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 638/4326/24 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A mother’s lawsuit against her ex-husband to deprive him of parental rights regarding their minor son due to long-term evasion of parental responsibilities.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that deprivation of parental rights is an extreme measure, yet it is fully justified if a father consciously and systematically neglects his duties for a long period of time (in this case — over 14 years). The Court established that the defendant did not participate in the upbringing, development, or education of the child at all, and the payment of alimony through compulsory collection by the executive service does not constitute full performance of parental duties. An important factor was the appellate court’s disregard for the opinion of the child himself, who had reached the age of 16, clearly expressed a lack of desire to maintain contact with his biological father, and identifies himself with his stepfather’s family. The Court stressed that the absence of evidence of obstruction of communication by the mother and the lack of initiative by the father to establish contact indicate his indifference to the son’s fate. Considering the best interests of the child, the Supreme Court concluded that maintaining formal parental rights contradicts the interests of the minor, who has effectively already integrated into another family.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the mother’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision to deprive the defendant of parental rights.
Case No. 607/11854/25 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of considering, under separate proceedings, an application to establish the fact of independent upbringing and support of a child by one of the parents for the p-obtaining a deferment from mobilization.
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that the establishment of such a fact is inextricably linked to a dispute over rights, as it involves an assessment of the performance of parental duties by the other parent and may affect the scope of the mother’s rights. The Supreme Court emphasized that family duties are inalienable, and their non-performance must be established exclusively in contentious proceedings, where the adversarial nature of the parties and the participation of the guardianship authority are ensured. Special proceedings cannot be used to create prejudicial facts that affect the interests of other persons, in particular the mother and the child themselves. The Court also emphasized that the institution of special proceedings is intended for undisputed facts, whereas issues regarding child-rearing are by their nature contentious. Regarding the arguments concerning the failure to consider the motion for recusal, the court determined that the application was submitted after the conclusion of the court hearing; therefore, no procedural violations were found. It is important that the court, in its conclusions, relied on the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated September 11, 2024, which clearly demarcates the boundaries between special and contentious proceedings in family law cases.
3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 675/261/21 dated 07/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the conviction of a person for receiving an unlawful benefit and the issue of compliance with pre-trial investigation time limits when submitting an indictment to the court.
2. The Supreme Court focused on the fact that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to reviewing the defense’s arguments regarding the violation of pre-trial investigation time limits. The key point is that the pre-trial investigation period ends precisely at the moment of the actual submission of the indictment to the court, not at the moment of its drafting or signing. The Court emphasized that for the suspension of the pre-trial investigation period during the time of familiarization with case materials (Art. 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code), the prosecution must have irrefutable evidence of proper notification of the suspect regarding the completion of the investigation. In this case, the prosecutor’s office did not provide evidence that the notification was handed over or sent to the defense in a timely manner, and simple registration of the document in the internal correspondence log is not proper evidence. Since the appellate court did not properly verify these circumstances, it violated the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Consequently, the appellate court’s conclusions regarding compliance with procedural time limits were deemed premature and unsubstantiated.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 205/4192/23 dated 07/23/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling,by which the criminal proceedings concerning the accusation of a person of committing a crime related to the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs (Part 2, Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) were concluded.
2. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the court of appeal did not ensure a proper verification of the arguments presented by the prosecution, which is mandatory for rendering a lawful and substantiated decision. In particular, the requirements regarding the completeness of the examination of the case materials and the provision of reasoned responses to the arguments set forth in the appeal were ignored. Since the procedure for appellate review was violated, this made it impossible to establish the truth in the case and to render a fair judgment. Therefore, in order to remedy the identified deficiencies and ensure the right to a proper judicial review, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to remit the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the court of appeal, and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
**Case No. 947/24990/21 dated 07/22/2026**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of imposing an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property on a person convicted of committing a criminal offense provided for by Part 2, Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
When rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the need to bring the judgment into compliance with current requirements of criminal legislation and the practice of imposing penalties. Specifically, the panel of judges analyzed the defense’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of applying property confiscation as an additional penalty in this specific case. The Court took into account that the imposition of such a type of penalty must be substantiated and conform to the principles of individualization of liability. Since the grounds for applying confiscation within the scope of the incriminated act were not properly confirmed or substantiated in the lower instances, the Court concluded that this provision must be excluded from the judgment. At the same time, other aspects of the crime’s classification and the principal penalty were found to be lawful and well-founded. Thus, the decision is aimed at correcting a legal error regarding the scope of the imposed penalty without changing the essence of the judgment concerning the proven guilt.
The Court dismissed the cassation appeal but partially modified the judicial decisions by excluding the provisions on the confiscation of the convicted person’s property from them.
**Case No. 824/147/25 dated 07/23/2026**
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. The subject of the dispute is the application by the company NAVITEC Sp. z o.o. for the setting aside of the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court atCCI of Ukraine, by which penalty sanctions and interest for delay in the delivery of goods under a contract with a military unit were recovered from the company.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the powers of national courts when considering applications for the setting aside of arbitral awards are strictly limited and do not provide for a review of the case on its merits or a reassessment of evidence. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the grounds for setting aside an award (in particular, a violation of public policy) lies exclusively with the applicant. In this case, the applicant failed to prove that the arbitral award in any way threatens the independence, integrity, or fundamental foundations of the legal order of Ukraine. The Court noted that the recovery of penalty sanctions for breach of contract terms is a private law dispute, not a matter of public policy. It was also established that the arbitral tribunal duly considered the motions for the recusal of an arbitrator and the summoning of a witness, providing them with an appropriate assessment. Therefore, the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of parties were deemed groundless.
3. The Supreme Court left the appellate complaint unsatisfied and the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to set aside the arbitral award unchanged.
Case No. 127/4632/25 dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the resolution of the issue regarding the recovery from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred during the consideration of the case in all judicial instances.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff proved the fact of the provision of legal assistance and its actual cost by providing the relevant agreement, warrant, and a detailed statement of work performed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the allocation of legal costs must be resolved taking into account the criteria of reality, necessity, and reasonableness of the amount of such costs. The Court took into account the complexity of the case, the scope of work performed by the attorney, and the fact that the plaintiff’s claims were satisfied in full. Since the defendants did not provide objections regarding the amount of costs, the Court recognized the claimed amount as justified and proportionate. The Court also reinstated the deadline for the submission of evidence of costs, as the applicant acted within a reasonable time after receiving the resolution of the court of cassation instance.
3. The Court decided to satisfy the application of LLC “Bright Investment” and to recover from the defendants in its favor 21,000 hryvnias of expenses for professional legal assistance (10,500 hryvnias from each).
Case No. 296/5557/25 dated 07/23/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to invalidate a loan agreement, a mortgage agreement, and a suretyship agreement concluded in 2007, claimingstating that the bank misled her and employed unfair business practices by failing to provide complete information regarding the credit terms.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court emphasized the presumption of lawfulness of a legal transaction (Article 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), noting that in order to declare the agreement invalid, the plaintiff had to prove the bank’s intent to mislead (deceit) or the fact of unfair business practice, which was not done.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the signing of the credit agreement and its annexes by the plaintiff, which contains clause 7.12 regarding the receipt of an information letter and understanding of the terms, serves as proper confirmation of the consumer’s awareness.
* The court noted that the failure to provide, or incomplete provision of, information about services is not, in itself, an unconditional ground for declaring a credit agreement invalid if the parties have reached an agreement on all essential terms.
* It was taken into account that the plaintiff fulfilled the terms of the agreement for a long period, which indicates her intent to receive the credit funds and the lack of any real impact of the alleged violations on her decision to enter into the agreement.
* Regarding foreign exchange risks, the court indicated that the bank fulfilled its obligation to warn about them, and the change in currency exchange rates is a risk that the borrower could have foreseen when concluding an agreement in a foreign currency.
* The court also rejected the arguments regarding the invalidity of the mortgage and suretyship, as they are derivative of the principal credit obligation, which remained in effect.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the denial of the claim.
Case No. 229/1345/23 of 07/23/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the lawfulness of the trial court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for committing premeditated murder committed for mercenary motives (Paragraph 8, Part 2, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court. Specifically, the court of cassation established that the appellate court did not provide a proper legal assessment of the arguments of the defense, which could have significantly affected the lawfulness and justification of the verdict. Since the appellate review was incomplete, it rendered it impossible to reach a lawful decision based on the results of the case review. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the standards of proof and ensuring the right to defense during appellate proceedings. In this regard, to eliminate the identified shortcomings and ensure fair justice, the case must be remanded for a new trial to the appellate court. At the same time, considering the gravity of the incriminated crime, the court selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention in custody.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court and premitted the case for a new trial in the appellate court, having selected a custodial preventive measure for the defendant.
Case No. 757/39882/24-c dated 07/15/2026
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 matter of the dispute:** Declaring illegal and canceling an order for termination by mutual agreement, reinstatement in the workplace, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that termination by mutual agreement (Clause 1, Part 1, Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine) requires a genuine and voluntary expression of will by both parties, which was not proven in this case.
– A key factor was the absence of the original employee application in the personnel file materials: the defendant attempted to justify the dismissal only with a photocopy of the application, which is not proper evidence of the expression of will.
– The court critically assessed the testimony of witnesses on the part of the employer, who confirmed that they had formally signed an act regarding the refusal to review the order without being eyewitnesses to the actual events.
– It was established that the plaintiff was not properly informed of the order, and his attempt to annul the agreement (oral objection) occurred prior to the issuance of the order.
– The court emphasized that the burden of proving the legality of the dismissal and compliance with the procedure lies exclusively with the employer, who failed to provide convincing evidence.
– The court also stressed that the execution of a financial settlement is an obligation of the employer and does not serve as evidence of the legality of the dismissal itself.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE “Forests of Ukraine” and left the decisions of the lower courts regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiff and the recovery of average earnings unchanged.
Case No. 361/6079/24 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded in hryvnia with the definition of an equivalent in foreign currency, and annual interest for the delay in the performance of a monetary obligation.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the parties to the agreement clearly fixed the debt amount in hryvnia with a link to an equivalent in US dollars, which is a legal method of protection against inflationary risks.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that although the hryvnia is the only legal means of payment, defining a monetary equivalent in foreign currency is not prohibited and allows for the correct calculation of the amount to be repaid on the date of payment.
* The court rejected the defendant’s arguments that the obligation had to be performed exclusively in hryvnia without taking into account the exchange rate difference, as this would contradict the agreements of the parties fixed in the contracts.
* An important aspect was the correction of an error by the lower courts, which had collecteddebt directly in US dollars, whereas the law requires the collection of the amount in hryvnia equivalent to the currency on the date of the decision’s execution.
* The Court noted that the accrual of 3% per annum under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is a lawful measure of liability for delay, regardless of whether the loan was secured by a mortgage that was subsequently declared invalid.
* The Supreme Court applied established case law, according to which, if there is a currency equivalent in the contract, the amount to be collected must be clearly defined as the hryvnia equivalent of the foreign currency at the time of the actual execution of the court decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the operative part of the decisions of the lower courts by clarifying that the collection must take place in an amount equivalent to 81,756.17 US dollars at the NBU exchange rate on the day of the decision’s execution.
**Case No. 753/9267/25 dated 08/07/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** An employee with a disability challenged the employer’s actions regarding the refusal to provide remote work, demanding the recovery of wages for the period of forced absenteeism, compensation for moral and material damage, and the obligation of the enterprise to amend internal documents to ensure inclusion.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff did not provide proper medical evidence (an up-to-date individual rehabilitation program) that would confirm the necessity of remote work specifically as a mandatory “reasonable accommodation.”
– The employer proved that under martial law, production necessity required the physical presence of the head of the department for the verification of financial documents and coordination of subordinates’ work, which excluded the possibility of performing duties remotely.
– The court noted that remote work under Article 60-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is a right, not an unconditional duty of the employer, unless otherwise provided by law or an employment contract.
– The fact of discrimination based on disability was not confirmed, as the plaintiff did not prove that her health condition objectively prevented her from performing work in the office, and the working conditions at the enterprise met accessibility requirements.
– The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s absence from the workplace without valid reasons (staying abroad was not properly justified as an inability to perform work) deprives her of the right to receive wages for that period.
– The demands regarding the amendment of the enterprise’s Statute were found groundless, as this falls under the exclusive competence of the owner (Kyiv City Council) and is not a means of protecting labor rights within the framework of this dispute.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim unchanged.
Case No. 761/45738/25 dated 07/22/2026
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings regarding the applicant’s appeal against a first-instance court decision denying an extension of a protection order due to her failure to comply with the procedural deadline.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The right to appellate review is not absolute and must be exercised within the time limits established by law to ensure the principle of legal certainty.
2. Valid reasons for missing a deadline can only be objective, insurmountable circumstances that make the performance of procedural actions impossible, which must be confirmed by appropriate evidence.
3. The Court established that outpatient treatment or childcare are not, in themselves, unconditional grounds for reinstating a deadline, as they do not deprive a person of the opportunity to apply to the court, including through a representative or the “Electronic Court” subsystem.
4. The applicant failed to prove the existence of objective obstacles that would have made it impossible to file the appeal on time, noting that during the same period, she was actively performing other procedural actions in other cases.
5. The Supreme Court confirmed that resolving the issue of reinstating a deadline falls within the discretionary powers of the court, which must maintain a balance between private interest and the principle of finality of a court judgment (res judicata).
6. The refusal to open appellate proceedings in this case did not violate the essence of the right of access to a court, as the restriction was proportionate and pursued a legitimate aim.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.
Case No. 544/1140/25 dated 07/21/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of the applicant living as a single family unit with her deceased brother, a military serviceman, for the purpose of receiving a one-time financial aid payment.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court established that at the time of the serviceman’s death (August 2023), the legislation in force contained an exhaustive list of persons entitled to such aid, and sisters were not included in that list.
– The Court emphasized that the amendments to the legislation that expanded the circle of aid recipients (by including persons who lived as a single family unit without marriage) only came into effect in 2024.
– In accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, laws do not have retroactive effect in time; therefore, the new norms do not apply to legal relations that arose before their adoption.
– The Court noted that establishing the fact of living as a single family unit in a special proceeding makes sense only when it gives rise to legal consequences for the applicant.
– Since, in this case, even confirming the fact of cohabitation does not grant the right to payment due to the lack of legislative grounds at the time of the brother’s death,such a fact has no legal significance for this case.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances did not resolve the dispute on the merits, but merely stated the absence of legal consequences for the applicant, which is a correct application of procedural law norms.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 185/2432/25 dated 07/22/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings due to the defendant’s failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against the court of first instance’s decision on the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that the fact of martial law or shelling of a city, in and of itself, does not constitute automatic grounds for the reinstatement of procedural deadlines. The court noted that the applicant failed to provide proper evidence of the impossibility of filing a complaint after the completion of her inpatient treatment period. Furthermore, the court drew attention to the defendant’s active procedural behavior during the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, which refutes her arguments regarding the total impossibility of exercising her right to defense due to the security situation. The court emphasized that valid reasons for missing a deadline can only be objectively insurmountable circumstances that make it impossible to perform actions, rather than subjective assertions about the absence of lawyers or difficult conditions. It was also emphasized that the institution of procedural deadlines is necessary to ensure legal certainty and to discipline the participants of the process. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court acted within the scope of its discretionary powers, having correctly assessed the absence of valid reasons for the reinstatement of the deadline.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to open appellate proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 202/15617/23 dated 07/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the proper judicial jurisdiction (civil or commercial) for the consideration of the claims of LLC “Morganit” against the Dnipro City Council regarding the recognition of ownership rights to an unauthorized construction object (a gas station) and its commissioning.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that to distinguish jurisdiction, it is not enough to consider only the fact of a natural person’s participation in the case; it is necessary to take into account the nature of the legal relations and the composition of the parties.
* The court noted that the dispute concerns the legalization of an unauthorized construction object on a plot of municipal land, where the proper defendant is indeed the City Council as the owner.land plot.
* Since the parties to the dispute in this part are legal entities (an LLC and a city council), and the subject matter of the dispute concerns economic activity and property rights to real estate, such claims are subject to consideration exclusively under commercial litigation procedures.
* The Court emphasized that the joinder of several claims in one application by the plaintiff does not change the rules of jurisdiction; therefore, the claims against the city council must be separated.
* The Supreme Court referred to Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, stating that the recognition of ownership of unauthorized construction must follow a strict algorithm, where the owner of the land plot acts as the key defendant.
* The appellate court mistakenly believed that the presence of an individual among the defendants automatically “pulls” all claims into civil litigation, ignoring the special nature of the dispute concerning real estate.
* As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the court of first instance’s position regarding the necessity of terminating the proceedings in the civil court concerning the claims against the city council.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to terminate the proceedings in the case regarding the claims against the Dnipro City Council, having clarified to the plaintiff the right to apply to the commercial court.
Case No. 740/3106/24 dated 07/23/2026
The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the judgment of the court of first instance convicting a person under Part 2 of Article 194 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional destruction or damage to property).
The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court during the review of the judgment. The court of cassation established that the appellate court did not provide a proper assessment of all the arguments set forth in the convicted person’s appeal, which is mandatory to ensure the right to a fair trial. In particular, the requirements regarding the reasoned nature of a judicial decision were violated, as the appellate court did not provide sufficient arguments to refute the position of the defense. Such an ignoring of procedural obligations made it impossible to verify the legality and validity of the judgment in full. In this regard, the panel of judges recognized that the conclusions of the appellate court were premature, and the review procedure was incomplete. Therefore, to eliminate the committed violations and ensure the rights of the convicted person, the case requires a retrial in the appellate instance.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 308/3120/15-ts dated 07/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaring illegal the decisions of the city council reregarding the transfer of land plots into private ownership, the cancellation of state certificates of ownership, and the recovery (vindication) of these plots for the benefit of the territorial community due to their unlawful alienation from communal ownership.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that when considering cases regarding the recovery of property, the proper defendant is the final acquirer, regardless of the number of previous resales.
– The Court established that the appellate instance committed an error by failing to examine the issue of singular succession: at the time the case was considered in the appellate court, the defendant, PERSON_25, was no longer the owner of the disputed plot, as it had been alienated to other persons.
– The Appellate Court prematurely dismissed the claim without clarifying the proper composition of the parties and without taking into account that a change in property ownership requires the involvement of new persons as participants in the case.
– Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out the necessity of verifying the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the illegality of the initial alienation of land from communal ownership, in particular, due to violations of urban planning and land legislation.
– The court of cassation instance emphasized that the Appellate Court failed to provide a proper assessment of all evidence, which led to the adoption of an unlawful decision.
– The Supreme Court did not agree with the Appellate Court’s automatic application of new legal norms (regarding the protection of a bona fide purchaser) without a proper analysis of the circumstances of the case and the legal status of the parties.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance court for the proper determination of the composition of the parties and the resolution of the dispute on its merits.
**Case No. 915/514/24 dated 07/14/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of recovering expenses for professional legal assistance from a Military Unit, incurred by the defendant in a commercial case.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the allocation of litigation costs is a duty of the court, which must be carried out on the principles of adversarial proceedings and the assessment of evidence based on internal conviction. The court emphasized that the criterion of proportionality of legal fees is an evaluative category; therefore, the court has the right to reduce the fee amount if it does not correspond to the complexity of the case or the volume of work performed. In this case, the courts of first and appellate instances properly examined the acts and invoices submitted by the defendant, establishing the actual volume of services provided. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s mere disagreement with the assessment of evidence is not grounds for overturning the decision, as the lower courts acted within their discretion. It was also emphasized that the appellant’s references to previous Supreme Court resolutions are groundless, as those decisions did not establish a prohibition on the recovery of expenses but only confirmed the court’s right to reduce their amount depending on specific circumstances. As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed thatthe lower courts correctly applied the norms of procedural law, taking into account both the interests of the party and the criteria of reasonableness and reality of the expenses.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the additional decision of the local commercial court and the ruling of the appellate court, which partially granted the motion for reimbursement of legal expenses, and dismissed the cassation appeal of the Military Unit.
Case No. 910/7753/25 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to compel the military unit through the court to document the transfer of three vehicles, which were handed over for defense needs during the first days of the full-scale invasion, by sending a request to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCC and SP) to draw up the appropriate orders and certificates.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that although the transfer of the vehicles occurred without following the formal procedure stipulated by the Law “On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization,” the demand for “compulsory formalization” of documents is not an effective way of protecting rights.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not engage in creating evidence for the parties, as acceptance certificates only record legal facts and do not create a right to the return of property.
* The panel of judges noted that for the proper formalization of the transfer under the law, the participation of third parties (TCC and SP) is necessary, therefore, imposing such a duty exclusively on the military unit is impossible.
* The court indicated that the absence of a perfectly executed certificate does not deprive the enterprise of the right to protect its interests in the future, in particular, to demand the return of property after demobilization or compensation for damages in case of its loss or damage.
* It was emphasized that retrospective (retroactive) formalization of documents is incapable of restoring the real state of affairs as of the time of transfer and, therefore, does not achieve the goal of effective protection of rights.
* The court concluded that the existing certificate of acceptance of material assets, drawn up in 2022, in conjunction with other evidence, is sufficient to confirm the fact of the property’s departure from the possession of the enterprise.
* Given the above, the court recognized that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is formal and does not lead to the actual restoration of property rights.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court, by which the claims were denied.
Case No. 902/1111/25 dated 07/14/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 902/1111/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the decision of the commission of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo,” by which the Garage Association was obligated to eliminate violations of the Retail Electricity Market Rules (REMR) due to an alleged [cut-off]use of a residential tariff for conducting commercial activities.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the distribution system operator did not provide sufficient evidence that would unequivocally confirm the fact that the plaintiff used electricity specifically for commercial purposes. In particular, the submitted photographs of advertising signs were deemed inadmissible evidence, as they were not linked to a specific address or facility of the plaintiff and did not identify the plaintiff as a business entity. The court emphasized that to prove a violation, it is insufficient to merely record an external sign; rather, it is necessary to conduct an inspection of internal networks and current collectors, which would confirm actual energy consumption for commercial purposes. The Supreme Court emphasized that the standard of proof requires the party asserting a violation to provide convincing evidence, not merely assumptions. Since the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, the lower courts rightfully applied the standard of the balance of probabilities in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous judicial practice, noting that courts have the right to individualize the application of legal norms depending on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instance, and dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Vinnytsiaoblenergo”.
Case No. 320/54376/24 dated 07/23/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the additional assessment by the tax authority of personal income tax (PIT) and military levy on the amount of funds received by the taxpayer as interest under a loan agreement, which the plaintiff considered to be non-taxable penalties.
2. In its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that for tax purposes, the key factor is not the civil-legal nature of the payment (as a measure of liability under Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), but the fact that the taxpayer received income subject to taxation under the Tax Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the funds received are essentially remuneration for the use of monetary funds, which falls directly under the provisions of subparagraph 164.2.2 of paragraph 164.2 of Article 164 of the Tax Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court found the appellate court’s reference to practice regarding civil-legal liability to be erroneous, as these decisions do not concern issues of tax administration. It was also confirmed that a taxpayer has a duty to maintain records of income, and the absence of such records (a Book of Income and Expenses) constitutes an independent violation of tax legislation. In summary, the court concluded that the tax authority lawfully classified the received amounts as taxable income, rather than as penalties.
3. The Supreme Court revoked the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which denied the claim to cancel the tax notices-
