Case No. 643/7463/24 of 07/27/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the recognition of her ownership right to 22/100 shares of a house property by virtue of acquisitive prescription.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that between the same parties (the plaintiff and the Kharkiv City Council) there was already a court decision that had entered into legal force regarding the same subject of the dispute (the same share of the house) and on the same legal grounds (Article 344 of the Civil Code of Ukraine). In accordance with the principle of “res judicata” (finality of a court decision), the re-examination of identical disputes is inadmissible, as it violates the stability of legal relations. The court emphasized that a change in circumstances, such as the death of a person who was previously an owner or the emergence of new evidence, does not change the legal nature of the claim if the subject and grounds remain unchanged. The plaintiff already had the opportunity to defend her rights within the previous judicial process, and disagreement with a previous decision is not a ground for initiating a new proceeding. Thus, the termination of the proceedings in the case was recognized as the only lawful procedural step to prevent the re-adjudication of a dispute already resolved.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the termination of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 910/7770/25 of 07/30/2026
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 of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant (OSBB – Condominium Association) during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of reimbursement of legal costs to the party in whose favor the decision was rendered, as enshrined in the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that the amount of the attorney’s fee is determined based on the terms of the contract and evidence of the actual provision of services, and the burden of proving the disproportionate nature of the costs lies solely with the party filing a motion for their reduction. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding excessive costs, noting that the preparation of a response and participation in the hearing are necessary elements of defense, regardless of the duration of the hearing itself. At the same time, the court applied the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality of costs, taking into account the actual scope of work performed. In doing so, the court strictly adhered to the terms of the contract between the OSBB and the attorney, reducing the amount for participation in the hearing to a fixed amount stipulated by the contract (3,500 UAH instead of the claimed 4,000 UAH). In conclusion, the court recognized the claimed costs as justified, with the exception of a minor adjustment accordingly.but to the contractual terms.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the petition of the Condominium Association (OSBB), ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant 15,500 UAH for professional legal aid expenses.
Case No. 924/251/25 dated 07/15/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of the state registration of the municipal ownership right of the Sudylkiv Village Council to a plot of forest land located within the territory of a nature reserve fund object, as well as the claim for its return to state ownership.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court emphasized that to resolve the case, the courts are obliged to clearly establish whether the disputed plot belonged to state-owned lands at the time of the registration of the municipal ownership right, taking into account the restrictions provided for in Paragraph 24 of the Transitional Provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine. The appellate court mistakenly limited itself only to the conclusion regarding an “improper method of protection,” without examining on the merits whether the state’s right to forest and nature conservation lands had been violated. The Supreme Court underscored that the prosecutor had justified the grounds for representing the interests of the state by pointing to the unlawful alienation of lands from state ownership. Since the appellate court did not assess the evidence regarding the status of the land plot and did not establish the actual circumstances of the case, its decision cannot be considered lawful. Therefore, to establish the legal facts that are decisive for the case, a re-trial in the appellate court must be conducted.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court vacated the resolution of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 920/1061/23(920/656/25) dated 07/30/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue of allocating court costs (collection of court fees) after the conclusion of the cassation review of the case concerning the collection of utility arrears.
In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the following main arguments:
1. The Supreme Court confirmed that since the court of first instance’s decision in favor of the plaintiff was upheld, the party that won the dispute is entitled to reimbursement of court fee expenses.
2. The court established that the plaintiff (LLC “SHP “Kharkivenerhoremont”) had actually paid the court fee for filing a cassation appeal in the amount of 4,844.80 UAH.
3. When deciding on the source of recovery, the court took into account the status of one of the defendants (Person_2), who is a person with a group II disability.
4. According to the law, persons with group II disabilities are exempt from paying court fees; therefore, imposing the duty to reimburse these expenses to the plaintiff upon them is impossible.
5. Considering the impossibility of collecting the fee from the defendant, the court applied the norms providing for the compensation of such expenses at the expense of the Stateof the Budget of Ukraine.
6. The Court emphasized that the issue of the distribution of court costs was not resolved in the main decision; therefore, the adoption of an additional decision is procedurally necessary to comply with the principle of reimbursement of costs to the party in whose favor the decision was rendered.
The Supreme Court decided to partially grant the plaintiff’s motion and recover 4,844.80 UAH of court fees in favor of LLC “SP ‘Kharkivenerhoremont'” at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine.
Case No. 916/2904/25 dated 07/28/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the claim of a co-owner to invalidate the decisions of the general meeting of an HOA regarding the installation of renewable energy equipment, the election of governing bodies, and the approval of contributions.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the lower instances, guided by the fact that the right to judicial protection arises only if the fact of a violation of specific rights or interests of the plaintiff is proven. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff, in their statement of claim, did not substantiate which specific rights of theirs were violated by the challenged decisions and how their cancellation would restore their position. Since the plaintiff did not present these arguments in the court of first instance, they were deprived of the right to change the grounds for the claim at the stage of cassation review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of a proven violation of rights is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim, regardless of whether the procedural aspects of conducting the meeting were observed. Consequently, the court saw no need to assess the legality of the meeting decisions on the merits, as the primary condition — the existence of a violated right — was not met.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/268/23 dated 07/31/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a brief summary of the essence of the case and the position of the Supreme Court.
**Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of applying measures to secure a claim in the form of the seizure of corporate rights and a prohibition on their alienation within the multi-level ownership structure of the “Ferrexpo” group of companies to guarantee the enforcement of a potential decision on the recovery of damages from the ultimate beneficial owner.
**Main arguments of the court**
1. The Court emphasized that at the stage of securing a claim, the dispute over ownership is not resolved; rather, only the presence of sufficient grounds for the temporary preservation of assets until the completion of the case consideration is assessed.
2. The Supreme Court clarified that procedural norms (Art. 272 of the Commercial Procedural Code) allow a person who did not participate in the previous appellate review to appeal the ruling, but this does not grant the right to an “endless” review of issues already resolved by other participants in the case.
3. The Court noted that forethe underlying element (a trust structure under Singapore law) does not limit the authority of the Ukrainian court to apply interim measures in accordance with the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, as these measures are preventive rather than final in nature.
4. Regarding the arguments concerning the failure to join the companies to the proceedings, the court indicated that the urgent nature of the interim measures allows for the issuance of a ruling without prior notification of all addressees of the injunction, and their rights are protected by the right to subsequent appeal.
5. The court found the risk of asset alienation to be proven, taking into account the scale of the claims (approximately UAH 46 billion), the defendant’s refusal to disclose information about assets, and the mobility of corporate rights.
6. The interim measures were recognized as proportionate, as they do not halt the business operations of the enterprises, but only restrict the disposal of shares, which is necessary to prevent difficulties in the future enforcement of a judgment.
7. The Supreme Court also emphasized the inadmissibility of abusing procedural rights by filing repeated motions and complaints that duplicate arguments already assessed by the court in previous rulings.
**Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, denying the cassation appeals and the motion to refer the case to the Grand Chamber.
[Case No. 922/496/22 of 07/15/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138646669)
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the state registration of property rights to real estate objects and an obligation for the defendant to return a plot of communal land by demolishing unauthorized structures.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts did not properly examine the evidence regarding the legal grounds for the development of the disputed plot. The court stressed that the right to develop belongs exclusively to the owner or a person with the appropriate proprietary right to the land; therefore, the absence of such rights in the developer is an independent ground for classifying the construction as unauthorized. The lower courts erroneously denied the claim, citing an alleged lack of proof of circumstances, while failing to establish the designated purpose of the plot and the legal status of the erected objects. The Supreme Court noted that the registration of property rights to unauthorized construction does not change its legal regime, and the protection of the landowner’s rights is a priority. Since the courts did not evaluate all of the prosecutor’s arguments and did not establish key factual circumstances, their decisions were found to be premature. As a result, due to violations of procedural law that rendered it impossible to establish the factual circumstances, the case was remanded for a new trial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.Case No. 910/11659/25 dated 07/22/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of insurance indemnity under a voluntary property insurance contract in connection with its destruction as a result of a fire and explosion.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances committed significant violations of procedural law by failing to properly examine all evidence and circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that when interpreting an insurance contract, one cannot ignore sections defining exclusions from insurance events (in particular, regarding military actions), as they do not contradict other terms, but rather limit the scope of insurance coverage. The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously applied the rules of interpretation of transactions (Art. 213 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) to effectively alter the terms of the contract, instead of clarifying their content. It was also noted that the courts failed to assess evidence regarding the causes of the fire, in particular, materials of the criminal proceedings concerning a war crime. The Supreme Court emphasized that the insurer’s obligation arises only when the event meets the definition of an insured event, and not an exclusion from it. Due to the incomplete establishment of the factual circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that it is impossible to render a new decision without a new trial.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 908/1561/25 dated 07/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Ulyss-Tour” for the recognition of the conclusion of a lease agreement for state-owned real estate, since, in the plaintiff’s opinion, the defendants unreasonably evaded signing a contract already agreed upon as a result of demand study.
2. The court established that the procedure for leasing the property had not been properly completed, as the mandatory consent of the balance holder (State Tax Service of Ukraine) regarding the plaintiff’s candidacy had not been obtained. Furthermore, on 02/01/2020, the new Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Communal Property” entered into force, which radically changed the model of property transfer by introducing mandatory electronic auctions, making it impossible to conclude a contract under the old terms. The court also drew attention to the fact that, at the time of consideration of the case, the disputed object had already been included in the list of small privatization objects, which directly prohibits the leasing of such property. The plaintiff did not belong to the categories of persons entitled to lease without an auction; therefore, its claims were deemed groundless. Arguments regarding the violation of the “principle of good governance” were rejected by the court, noting that state bodies acted within the limits of the law, and the plaintiff did not comply with the established procedure.Finally, the court emphasized that it lacks the authority to replace the auction procedure and compulsorily recognize a contract as concluded, bypassing existing legal requirements.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts to dismiss the claim, and the cassation appeal of Ulysses-Tour LLC was left unsatisfied.
Case No. 910/14325/24 dated 07/29/2026
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Invalidation of the decisions of the parish assembly of a religious community regarding the change of canonical subordination, as well as the cancellation of the order to register the statute in a new version.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeal committed significant procedural violations by failing to provide a proper assessment of all arguments presented by the parties. In particular, the appellate court ignored the defendant’s arguments regarding the potential falsification and unreliability of the minutes, which the plaintiff relied upon as evidence of their position. The court emphasized that the appellate instance is obligated to provide grounds for the rejection of every significant argument made by the parties, which was not done in this case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out an incorrect allocation of the burden of proof: since it was the plaintiff who claimed that the assembly lacked a quorum due to the participation of unauthorized persons, the plaintiff was required to provide clear evidence thereof, rather than shifting the entire burden of proof onto the defendant. The court also underscored that the appellate court has no right to ignore evidence that calls into question the legitimacy of individuals’ membership in a religious community. Consequently, due to the failure to comply with the requirements regarding the completeness of the examination of evidence and the reasoned nature of the decision, the cassation instance determined it impossible to uphold the appellate ruling.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the same appellate court.
Case No. 909/362/25 dated 07/28/2026
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** A non-governmental organization challenged the decisions of the general meeting of the company and the registration action regarding the change of information about the legal entity, citing the lack of a quorum, violation of the procedure for convening the meeting, and forgery of documents.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that at the time the meeting was held, one of the participants (the heir) held 61% of the authorized capital, which was sufficient to pass resolutions; therefore, the arguments regarding the lack of a quorum are groundless. Regarding the power of attorney based on which the representative of this participant acted, the court noted that the plaintiff did not challenge its legitimacy during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, these arguments cannot be the subject of review in cassation. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court is a court of law,and not on the facts, and therefore it has no authority to establish new circumstances or re-evaluate evidence that was not previously subject to examination. The court also rejected the appellant’s references to other cases, as the legal relations in those cases are not similar to the circumstances of this dispute. Furthermore, the court refused to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as the appellant failed to prove the existence of grounds for such an exceptional review, in particular regarding a violation of jurisdiction rules. In conclusion, the court reached the decision that the challenged rulings of the lower courts were rendered in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/16507/23 dated 31/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s return of an appeal filed against a ruling of a local commercial court on staying a statement of claim without movement.
2. The Supreme Court, in its decision, was guided by a clear distinction between procedural acts provided for by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the list of rulings subject to separate appellate review is exhaustive and does not include a ruling on staying a claim without movement. Any objections to such an interim ruling must be included in the appeal against the final decision, which in this case is the ruling on leaving the claim without consideration. The court rejected the appellant’s argument regarding a “procedural vicious circle,” pointing out that current legislation provides an effective mechanism for protecting rights through the appeal of the final procedural act itself. It was also emphasized that previous rulings of the Supreme Court in this same case do not provide grounds for an exception to the general rule of appeal. The Supreme Court noted that restricting the separate appeal of interim rulings is a legitimate instrument for ensuring the efficiency of the judicial process and does not violate the right of access to justice.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal.
Case No. 921/734/25 dated 22/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is its concise legal analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from an individual entrepreneur of unjustifiably retained funds in the amount of rent for the actual use of municipal land plots without formal title documents.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant, being the owner of real estate located on municipal land plots, actually used them for business activities, but did not enter into a lease agreement and did not pay funds for their use. The Supreme Court confir…held that the legal status of an individual entrepreneur does not exempt a person from the obligation to pay for the use of land if such property is used in economic activities. The court noted that since the real estate was used for business purposes, the dispute was lawfully considered by the commercial court. The court also took into account that, in previous similar cases, the defendant had effectively acknowledged the legitimacy of the claims regarding land payments. The appellant’s arguments concerning the incorrect determination of the rent amount were rejected, as the 12% rate was established by local council decisions, and the defendant had submitted the application for changing the land’s designated purpose only after the end of the disputed period. As a result, the court concluded that the decisions of the lower courts are based on the correct application of substantive and procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 914/2291/25 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The plaintiff (Invest OU company) filed a lawsuit against the territorial administration of the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the State Treasury Service for compensation for material damage caused by the non-return of property (goods) seized during criminal proceedings.
**2. Key arguments of the court:**
* The court emphasized that when resolving disputes regarding compensation for damage caused by public authorities, the court must independently evaluate evidence and establish the existence of the elements of a civil tort, rather than relying solely on the existence or absence of a verdict or other court decision regarding the illegality of the actions of officials.
* The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts mistakenly equated the right of the person from whom the property was seized (the carrier) with the right of the property owner to claim damages caused by its loss.
* The courts failed to properly investigate whether the ruling on the return of property was actually executed, or whether the property was lost while in the custody of the SBI.
* The court noted that the non-execution of a decision on the return of temporarily seized property and its actual loss constitute an independent ground for the protection of property rights, regardless of who was the actual possessor of the property at the time of seizure.
* The court also highlighted a violation by the lower courts of the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof: the courts did not analyze the plaintiff’s arguments regarding payment for the goods and did not provide reasons why the defendant’s evidence (if any) outweighed the plaintiff’s evidence.
* The court pointed out the necessity of complying with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which obliges the state to ensure an effective mechanism for the protection of property rights, including through the compensation of damages.
**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the court of first instance and the appellate…of the instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 910/1678/25 dated 07/28/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 910/1678/25.
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for completed construction works (initial claim) and the recovery of penalties for breach of deadlines for the performance of works under a construction contract (counterclaim).
**2. Arguments of the Court**
The court established that the contractor did not complete the work in full within the period stipulated by the contract, and the contractual obligations did not terminate, as the facility was not commissioned and there was no certificate of readiness. The contractor’s arguments regarding the impossibility of performing the work due to force majeure and the customer’s actions were rejected by the court, noting that these circumstances do not release the party from the obligation to perform and do not indicate its objective impossibility. The court emphasized that the customer had the right to withhold 10% of the cost of work until the facility was commissioned in accordance with the terms of the contract. Regarding the counterclaim, the court recognized the fact of the contractor’s delay but exercised its discretionary powers to reduce the amount of penalties by 99.58%. The court justified this reduction by the need to maintain a fair balance of the parties’ interests, as the recovery of the full amount of penalties would be disproportionate to the consequences of the breach and could threaten the financial stability of the contractor. At the same time, the court took into account that the customer did not provide evidence of actual losses sustained as a result of the delay.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which denied the initial claim in full and partially granted the counterclaim with a reduction in the amount of penalties.
Case No. 904/1430/24 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Invalidation of the decision of the General Meeting of Participants of a Limited Liability Company and the new version of the Articles of Association, adopted by the guardian of the property of a person missing under special circumstances.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court established that the guardian of the property of a person missing under special circumstances is their legal representative, who has the right to vote at the general meeting of the company to manage this property.
– The main purpose of convening the meeting was to bring the company’s tax address into compliance with legal requirements (relocation from occupied territory), which was impossible without changing the director and the Articles of Association.
– The court emphasized that the guardian acted in good faith, as these actions were aimed at restoring the company’s economic activity and generating profit, which is in the interests of all participants, including the plaintiff.
– The challenged decisions did not lead to a decrease in the plaintiff’s share in the authorized capital or deprivationher corporate rights, but merely changed the company’s management model to a more balanced one.
– The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a conflict of interest or abuse on the part of the guardian, and her arguments regarding the impossibility of voting by the guardian were recognized as those that negate the institution of guardianship and threaten the stability of civil turnover.
– The court also rejected the motion to transfer the case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as it did not find the presence of an exceptional legal issue or contradictory judicial practice.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the ground concerning the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and in the remaining part, upheld the appellate court’s ruling to dismiss the lawsuit.
Case No. 917/1926/25 dated 07/29/2026
The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Private Enterprise “Ukrbudservice-DVM” to declare illegal and cancel the decision of the Joint-Stock Company “Poltavaoblenergo”.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court analyzed the case materials and concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, providing them with an appropriate legal assessment. The panel of judges did not identify any violations that could serve as grounds for overturning the challenged judicial acts. The arguments of the cassation appeal were deemed unfounded, as they did not refute the legitimacy of the conclusions set forth in the decision of the Commercial Court of Poltava Region and the resolution of the North-western Commercial Court of Appeal. The court confirmed that the challenged decisions are based on a complete and comprehensive examination of the evidence. Thus, the legal position of the lower courts was recognized as complying with the requirements of the current legislation.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 910/11304/25 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:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The prosecutor attempted to cancel the order of the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, the results of the auction, and the agreement on granting a special permit for subsoil use of the Vydynivske deposit, claiming that the extraction of minerals in this area is illegal due to its location in the bed of the mountain river Prut and on water fund lands.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, emphasizing that the mere fact of granting a permit for a plot that partially covers a water protection zone is not an automatic violation of the law, since extraction there is possible only upon completing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure and complying with strict environmental restrictions. The court noted that the prosecutor did not prove a real violation of rights of tof the state, since at the time of the case review the subsoil user was only at the stage of geological study, rather than industrial extraction, which could have caused damage to the river. An important argument was that the special permit contains clear prohibitions on activities within the riverbed and coastal protection strips, and any violation of these conditions in the future is grounds for supervision by the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine, rather than for the cancellation of the permit at the stage of its issuance. The court also drew attention to the principle of “good governance” and the protection of the property rights of the investor, who paid significant funds into the budget, emphasizing that the prosecutor did not justify the need for such radical state intervention. The court also pointed out that the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the illegality of the activity were based solely on assumptions, which is inadmissible in commercial proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate commercial court, dismissing the prosecutor’s lawsuit.
Case No. 917/1001/25 dated 07/29/2026
Here is an analysis of the judicial decision provided by you:
1. The subject of the dispute in this supplementary resolution is the resolution of the issue of collecting court fees from PERSON_1 for filing a cassation appeal, which had previously been deferred by the court.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that during the opening of the cassation proceedings, the applicant was granted a deferral of the court fee payment until the moment a final decision was reached in the case. Since the cassation review of the case was already completed by the resolution dated 07/07/2026, and the court fee was not paid within the statutory period, grounds for its compulsory collection arose. The court referred to the provisions of Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees,” which clearly limits the term of the deferral to the moment a court decision is rendered. Since the issue of distributing these costs was not resolved in the previous resolution of the Supreme Court, the court exercised its right to issue a supplementary decision. This is a procedural measure aimed at ensuring revenues to the State Budget of Ukraine and fulfilling the requirements of procedural legislation. Thus, the court merely filled the gap that arose when the main decision was rendered.
3. The court ruled to collect 76,840.69 UAH in court fees from PERSON_1 in favor of the State Budget of Ukraine for filing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 914/1076/25 dated 07/29/2026
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:** Challenging the decisions of the general meeting of the Condominium Association (OSBB) regarding the establishment of differentiated (increased) maintenance contributions for owners of non-residential premises compared to apartment owners.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the general meeting of the Condominium Association has the exclusive competence to determine the size of contributions, and the law does not prohibit the establishment of different tariffs for residential and non-residential premises.
* Establish…is satisfied that the differentiation of contributions is justified, as the commercial use of premises involves a higher intensity of infrastructure utilization and greater load on utility networks and the adjacent territory.
* The court emphasized that current legislation does not require the financial and economic justification for tariffs to be formalized as a separate document at the moment of voting.
* The court recognized reports on receipts and expenditures for previous years, which confirm the reality of the expenses incurred by the association, as sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of the Condominium Association’s (OSBB) expenses.
* Regarding discrimination, the court noted that the mere fact that the owner of a non-residential premise is in the minority during a vote does not constitute evidence of an abuse of rights by the majority of co-owners.
* The court also upheld the legality of recovering legal assistance costs, pointing out that their amount must be proportionate, and the time spent by an attorney on preparation and participation in hearings is an integral part of professional assistance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 914/69/25 dated 07/29/2026
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 refusal of the lower courts to review a decision based on newly discovered circumstances, which the applicant considered to be a ruling of another court in a different case concerning the jurisdictional nature of similar lawsuits.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that newly discovered circumstances are legal facts that existed at the time of the case hearing but were not and could not have been known to the applicant. The Court noted that a ruling issued in another case after the decision was rendered cannot be considered a newly discovered circumstance. Furthermore, the legal position of a court in another proceeding or a change in such a position is not grounds for reviewing final court decisions. The Court stressed that the procedure for review based on newly discovered circumstances does not provide for the re-evaluation of evidence or the verification of the legality of a decision that has already entered into force. The applicant’s attempt to use another ruling to prove a violation of jurisdictional rules is effectively an attempt to review the case on its merits beyond the procedural deadlines. Thus, the applicant’s arguments were deemed legally untenable as they do not meet the criteria defined by Article 320 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 910/12405/25 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the recovery by a Condominium Association (OSBB) of arrears from a premise owner regarding payments for building maintenance and penalties, as well as…counterclaims of the owner for declaring invalid the decisions of the general meeting of the Condominium Association regarding the imposition of penalties.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the liability of a co-owner of an apartment building, in particular civil liability, must be clearly provided for by law, and not only by the internal documents of the association. Current legislation (the Laws “On Condominium Associations”, “On Specifics of Exercising Ownership Rights in an Apartment Building”, and the Housing Code) does not vest a Condominium Association with the right to independently establish fines or penalties for late payment of contributions. Since no separate civil law contract providing for such liability had been concluded between the parties, the provisions of the articles of association or the internal “Procedure” regarding the accrual of penalties contradict civil legislation acts. The court also noted that a Condominium Association does not have unlimited discretion in establishing penalties that are not provided for by law. Regarding legal costs, the court applied criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, reducing the amount of reimbursement for legal assistance in view of the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed by the attorney.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of lower instances, which denied the recovery of the penalty and declared invalid the clause of the internal Condominium Association Procedure regarding the accrual of such a penalty.
**Case No. 910/10887/24 dated 07/29/2026**
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:** Collection of debt under a contract for the provision of container handling services at a seaport and a counterclaim to declare this contract invalid due to the lack of authority of the director of the defendant company.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The courts of first and appellate instances denied the counterclaim because the plaintiff did not prove that the port was aware of the limitations on the authority of the counterparty’s director.
* Regarding the original claim, the lower courts partially satisfied the demands but refused to recover funds under 17 invoices due to their “insufficient detailing” (absence of container numbers in the certificates).
* The courts independently recalculated the cost of services for 5 other invoices by applying the exchange rate on specific dates and excluding the period during which the containers were under seizure within the framework of criminal proceedings.
* The Supreme Court critically evaluated this approach, noting that courts should not be limited only to formal defects of primary documents if there is evidence of the reality of the business transaction.
* The court emphasized that the signing of certificates is secondary, while the primary factor is the fact of service provision, which must be established through an analysis of all evidence in aggregate (requests, acceptance-transfer certificates, etc.).
* The Supreme Court also pointed out the need to assess electronic evidence (correspondence) regarding the sending of invoices, as the parties had agreed upon such a method of communication in the contract.
* The court emphasized that it is impossible to…automatically release the customer from paying for services solely due to the fact that containers were seized by law enforcement agencies, if they physically remained on the port’s territory.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to satisfy the initial claim and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv City.
Case No. 921/145/25 dated 07/28/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 921/145/25:
1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of resolutions of the general meeting of a joint-stock company regarding the granting of prior consent to the conclusion of major transactions, since, in the plaintiff’s opinion, these resolutions are effectively aimed at approving interested-party transactions in which the majority shareholder was not entitled to vote.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts committed significant procedural violations that made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case. In particular, the courts groundlessly denied the plaintiff’s motions to request lease agreements concluded between the defendant and a third party, justifying this by the prematurity of the claim. The Court emphasized that in order to verify arguments regarding the existence of shareholder interest, these agreements must be examined rather than limiting the scope of inquiry to the formal status of the general meeting’s resolutions. The Supreme Court stressed that the refusal to compel the production of evidence contradicts the principle of procedural economy and the objective of commercial litigation to ensure full protection of violated rights. The courts failed to properly assess the plaintiff’s arguments that the majority shareholder, being affiliated with a party to the transactions, had no right to vote on the relevant matters. Consequently, the courts’ conclusions regarding the prematurity of the claims were deemed unfounded as they were based on an incomplete investigation of the case circumstances.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances (including additional decisions regarding court costs) and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Ternopil Region.
Case No. 910/14273/24 dated 07/30/2026
The subject of the dispute is the demand of the Smila City Council to invalidate and cancel a decision of the territorial office of the Anti-Monopoly Committee of Ukraine.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that local self-government bodies are required to strictly comply with the requirements of legislation on the protection of economic competition when adopting their decisions. The Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law by the courts of first and appellate instances, which had already examined the circumstances of the case in detail. It was established that the Anti-Monopoly Committee’s findings regarding the existence of violations by the City Council are well-founded and supported by proper evidence. The Court concluded that the challenged decisions of the lower courts
