Case No. 207/5073/21 dated 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the mortgagee’s rights and the foreclosure on the mortgage collateral (a residential house and a land plot) to satisfy the debt under a loan agreement.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed procedural errors during the allocation of litigation costs. Firstly, the appellate court failed to provide any grounds for why exactly such an amount of court fees should be recovered from the bank. Secondly, the appellate court ignored the legal requirement for a proportional distribution of costs in the event of partial satisfaction of claims. Furthermore, the principle regarding the property nature of the claims was violated: since a lawsuit for foreclosure on mortgage property has a valuation, the distribution of costs must be based on the amount of satisfied monetary claims. The Court emphasized that a decision must be lawful and reasoned, and the disregard of procedural norms regarding the distribution of costs constitutes grounds for overturning the decision in that part. Since the appellate court did not perform a proper calculation, the Supreme Court cannot independently correct this error without examining the case files.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the distribution of litigation costs, and remanded the case in this part for a new consideration to the appellate court.
Case No. 494/1205/23 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the dismissal of an employee due to the expiration of the term of an employment contract and her claims for reinstatement and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism.
2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following arguments:
* Labor legislation (Art. 23 of the Labor Code of Ukraine) allows for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts by mutual agreement of the parties, which was confirmed by the corresponding applications of the plaintiff.
* Dismissal under Clause 2, Part 1, Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (expiration of the contract term) is not a dismissal initiated by the employer; therefore, it does not require compliance with the procedures prescribed for redundancy or other similar grounds.
* The court established that the plaintiff was familiarized with the terms of the fixed-term contract upon hiring and subsequently submitted a handwritten application for its extension, which refutes her arguments regarding the indefinite nature of the employment relationship.
* A delay in the final settlement upon dismissal does not indicate an automatic extension of the employment relationship for an indefinite period.
* The court emphasized that within the framework of cassation proceedings, it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the courts of lower instances…fully and comprehensively investigated the circumstances of the case.
* The court dismissed the plaintiff’s reference to the absence of the original application for the extension of the contract, as she did not challenge the authenticity of this evidence or request its original during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the employee’s dismissal.
Case No. 756/18224/21 dated 29/07/2026
The subject of this dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of court costs (court fees and expenses for professional legal assistance) following the final conclusion of the case proceedings in the Supreme Court.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that, according to the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the party in whose favor the decision is rendered has the right to reimbursement of the incurred court costs. The Supreme Court established that since the defendant’s cassation appeal was granted, they are entitled to compensation for the court fee paid for filing this appeal. Regarding legal assistance expenses, the court took into account that a portion of the expenses for the first instance had already been recovered earlier by an existing additional decision, which was not appealed. When assessing the remaining claimed expenses for the appellate and cassation instances, the court applied the criteria of proportionality and reasonableness. The judges agreed with the plaintiff’s arguments that the total amount of the fee was excessive given the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney. As a result, the court independently determined a fair amount of compensation, reducing the sum to 20,000 hryvnias for the attorney’s work in the appellate and cassation instances.
The court partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant 19,492 UAH in court fees and 20,000 UAH in legal assistance expenses.
Case No. 554/532/24 dated 03/08/2026
Hello. 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:** The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the additional accrual by the gas distribution system operator of the cost of unmetered natural gas to a consumer due to an allegedly discovered “unauthorized gas pipeline” (a hole in the pipe) and the consumer’s demand to cancel these accruals and receive compensation for moral damages.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the gas distribution system operator did not provide proper evidence of the fact of unauthorized connection by the consumer to the network, as the detected hole in the underground part of the pipe does not indicate the presence of a physical branch or tap-in through which unmetered gas withdrawal could have been carried out.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that proof cannot be based on assumptions, and the burden of proving the fact of the offense lies with the gas distribution system operator.
– The appellate court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, correctly assessed the evidence, pointing out that the presence of only damage (a holey) the lack of evidence of the connection of additional equipment is not a sufficient ground to qualify the consumer’s actions as gas theft.
– The court also emphasized that procedural violations during the drafting of the report and the absence of evidence of an unauthorized connection make the application of sanctions in the form of additional accrual of gas volumes impossible.
– Regarding moral damages, the court recognized the fact of violation of the consumer’s rights due to the baseless accrual of a significant debt amount, which became the grounds for the partial satisfaction of claims for compensation.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the findings of the appellate instance comply with the norms of substantive law and the practice of the Supreme Court regarding evidentiary standards in similar disputes.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Poltavagaz” and upheld the resolution of the appellate court, which had canceled the additional accrual and partially satisfied the consumer’s claim.
**Case No. 450/1492/25 of 07/29/2026**
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Cassation appeal of the appellate court’s verdict, which had revoked the exemption of the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code) for causing a fatal traffic accident and imposed actual imprisonment.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate instance acted within the scope of its powers, as it had the right to review the issue of sentencing in the presence of a corresponding appeal by the prosecutor. The court emphasized that when sentencing under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code (death of several persons), the priorities are not only data on the person of the perpetrator, but also the severity of the consequences and the goal of general prevention of crimes. Although the convicted person had a number of mitigating circumstances (sincere remorse, absence of a criminal record, compensation for damages), these are not an absolute basis for the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code in cases involving serious crimes with lethal consequences. The court also noted that the opinion of the victims regarding the measure of punishment is important but not decisive for the court when rendering a verdict. Ultimately, the imposition of the minimum term provided for by the sanction of the article (5 years) was recognized as fair and consistent with the principle of individualization of punishment.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.
**Case No. 755/12574/24 of 07/29/2026**
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the father’s communication with his minor son and the establishment of a visitation schedule due to a conflict between the former spouses.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the lower courts, proceeding from the fact that parents have equal rights to raise their child, and the dissolution of marriage or otplace of residence does not exempt one from these obligations. The Court emphasized that restricting the father’s communication with the child exclusively to the presence of the mother is possible only if there is irrefutable evidence of the father’s negative influence on the child’s development, which was not provided in this case. The courts reasonably rejected the conclusion of the guardianship authority, as it was insufficiently reasoned and did not correspond to the child’s interests. It was also emphasized that the existing agreement between the parents did not contain a prohibition on communication without the mother’s presence, and the conflictual relationship between the adults should not become an instrument for restricting the child’s rights to contact with both parents. The Supreme Court also noted that the established visitation schedule, which provides for a gradual transition to communication without the mother’s presence, is a reasonable balance for establishing emotional contact.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, denying the cassation appeal filed by the child’s mother.
Case No. 196/662/22 dated 07/29/2026
Here is an analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the correct calculation of the statute of limitations for bringing to criminal liability for official negligence that caused grave consequences (Part 2 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Court proceeded from the premise that official negligence is a crime with a material composition; therefore, criminal liability arises only from the moment the grave consequences are actually caused. The appellate court mistakenly began the countdown of the statute of limitations from the date of signing additional agreements to the contract, whereas the crime is considered completed only after the damage has occurred. The Supreme Court established that the damages to the state were caused in stages, and the final payment, which completed the formation of the grave consequences, took place on October 21, 2021. Since this specific date is the moment the crime was completed, the statute of limitations had not yet expired at the time of the appellate review. Consequently, the appellate decision to close the proceedings was premature and based on an incorrect application of substantive law. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance was obliged to take into account the actual circumstances of the occurrence of the consequences, and not just the date of committing formal actions (signing the agreements).
3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 216/2422/16ц dated 08/03/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of cohabitation as a single family without a registered marriage, recognition of property as common joint property, and recognition of the right of ownership to a share in a vehicle by way of inheritance.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Court emphasized that for the recognition of de facto marital relations, the mere fact of cohabitation or registration is insufficient.at one address. The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a joint budget, the maintenance of a common household, and mutual rights and obligations inherent specifically in spouses. The Court noted that the residential lease agreement concluded between the parties earlier effectively refutes the existence of family relations during that period. It was also emphasized that witness testimony and joint photographs are not self-sufficient evidence to confirm the fact of establishing a family. The courts of previous instances correctly evaluated the evidence in its totality, finding no signs of joint acquisition of the vehicle using joint funds. The Supreme Court confirmed that the reassessment of evidence does not fall within its powers, and the conclusions of the lower courts fully comply with established practice.
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. 643/12053/20 dated 08/03/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by the spouse of the deceased to remove his son from the right to inheritance by law due to the latter’s alleged evasion of providing assistance to his father, who was in a helpless state.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that removal from inheritance under Part 5 of Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is an extreme measure that requires proving a combination of three factors: the testator being in a helpless state, the heir having the ability to provide assistance, and the heir’s intentional evasion of this duty. The Court emphasized that evasion must constitute culpable conduct, i.e., conscious disregard of the duty when there is a real possibility of fulfilling it. In this case, the plaintiff did not provide sufficient and convincing evidence that the son intended to evade providing assistance or that the father requested such assistance from him and was refused. The court of cassation noted that it has no authority to reassess evidence, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the lower courts, which had already established the absence of the fact of intentional evasion. Thus, the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amount only to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is not grounds for overturning the decision.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the lawsuit, unchanged.
Case No. 199/7721/24 dated 07/22/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of wage arrears and average earnings for the duration of the delay in final settlement, as well as the obligation to pay the single social contribution, which arose between a professional football player and a football club.
2. **Court arguments:** The courtThe courts of first and appellate instance erroneously closed the proceedings, citing the fact that the dispute should be resolved exclusively by football judicial bodies (UAF SCC and CAS) based on the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court emphasized that the presence of an arbitration clause in a contract does not deprive a person of the right to judicial protection, and labor disputes are, as a general rule, subject to consideration under civil procedure. However, the key factor was the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the respondent (SC Dnipro-1 LLC) in the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region. According to established practice, all property claims against a debtor for whom bankruptcy proceedings have been initiated must be considered exclusively within the framework of that case by the commercial court. Therefore, the closure of proceedings by the lower courts was deemed incorrect, as the case should have been transferred to the appropriate commercial court for consideration on the merits. This ensures compliance with the principle of concentrating all claims against a debtor within a single proceeding and guarantees effective access to justice.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the lower courts and referred the case materials to the Commercial Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region for consideration within the framework of the respondent’s bankruptcy case.
**Case No. 466/13628/23 dated 03/08/2026**
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:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recognize a notary’s enforcement endorsement as not subject to execution due to a violation of the procedure for its issuance and the lack of undisputed debt.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court established that the creditor did not provide the notary with proper evidence of the undisputed nature of the debt, as a court decision on the collection of the same debt already existed at the time of the endorsement, which precluded the possibility of charging additional interest and penalties. Since the documents on the basis of which the endorsement was issued were destroyed, the respondent was unable to prove the legality of the notary’s actions and the availability of all necessary documents. The court also emphasized that a violation by a notary of the procedure for issuing an enforcement endorsement is an independent ground for recognizing it as not subject to execution. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court clarified that due to legislative changes related to the quarantine and martial law, the deadline for filing a lawsuit was extended and subsequently suspended, so the plaintiff did not miss the statutory period. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court, noting that the appellant’s arguments amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is beyond the powers of the cassation instance.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Cycle Finance LLC and upheld the judgment of the Lviv Court of Appeal, by which the lawsuit was granted.
Case No. 570/1508/25 dated 03/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against a local self-government body for the reinstatement of their registered place of residence, which had been cancelled upon the application of the property owner.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the premise that a dispute regarding deregistration of a place of residence initiated by a property owner is of a private-law nature, as it affects the property rights and interests of specific individuals.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that in such disputes, the proper defendant is the property owner at whose request the deregistration was performed, rather than the registration authority (village council).
* In these legal relations, the registration authority performs only a technical function and cannot act as a proper defendant, as it is not the party that violated the plaintiffs’ civil rights to the use of the dwelling.
* The Court of Appeal correctly determined that the plaintiffs chose an improper defendant, which is an independent procedural ground for dismissing the claims.
* The court emphasized that the existence of a previous court decision confirming the plaintiffs’ right to use the dwelling does not exempt them from the obligation to properly identify the defendant in a new lawsuit.
* The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs are not deprived of the right to file a new lawsuit with the court, but this time against the proper defendant — the owner of the house.
* The conclusions of the Court of Appeal were recognized as consistent with the established practice of the Supreme Court regarding the determination of a proper defendant in disputes concerning registration of a place of residence.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the resolution of the Court of Appeal, which denied the claim due to its filing against an improper defendant, unchanged.
Case No. 463/5585/22 dated 29/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The Lviv City Council filed a negatory action against an individual to compel the demolition of an unauthorized brick garage located on a plot of communal land.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to develop a land plot belongs exclusively to its owner or a person who holds relevant real rights; therefore, construction without such rights is unauthorized. The court underscored that the defendant in a negatory action for the demolition of an object must be the current owner (acquirer) of that object, regardless of whether they personally performed the construction or purchased it already built. The Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts mistakenly focused only on the question of who exactly erected the garage, ignoring the fact of the violation of the right of ownership.and the territorial community to the land. It was also noted that the absence of permits for a capital structure and the use of land without title documents constitute sufficient grounds for classifying the object as unauthorized construction. The court emphasized that since the garage prevents the owner (the City Council) from using communal land, the demand for demolition is an appropriate method of protection. Given that the appellate court did not properly investigate these circumstances and did not evaluate the evidence, the Supreme Court deemed the decision premature.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
Case No. 362/3139/22 dated 03/08/2026
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:** The legality of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings upon the defendant’s appeal against the trial court’s decision on the division of marital property due to the expiration of the one-year appeal deadline.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the expiration of the one-year period from the date of the decision is an imperative ground for refusing appellate review, regardless of the reasons for the delay, except in cases where a person was not notified of the case proceedings at all. The court established that the defendant was duly notified at her registered address, which is confirmed by the case files and her own procedural conduct in other legal disputes. The appellant’s arguments regarding her stay abroad and the absence of her signature on the applications were rejected by the court, as she failed to provide convincing evidence that she was deprived of the opportunity to learn about the course of the case. The court emphasized that the right to access justice is not absolute and must be balanced with the principle of legal certainty and the finality of court decisions. Therefore, the appellate court acted lawfully by refusing to initiate proceedings, as the defendant failed to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances to restore the missed one-year deadline.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 588/2264/24 dated 22/07/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint.
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the declaration of a natural person as incapacitated and the appointment of her son, a military serviceman, as her guardian.
**2. Court’s arguments**
The court proceeded from the premise that although the status of a military serviceman is not, in itself, a legal prohibition against appointment as a guardian, the key task of guardianship is to ensure actual, rather than formal, care for the incapacitated person. The lower courts established that the guardianship authority thand guardianship prepared the submission formally, without proper examination of family circumstances, in particular, without clarifying the ward’s relationships with other close relatives (specifically, his brother). It was also established that the conclusion of the guardianship and care authority was based solely on the statements of the attorney, without personal interaction with the candidate for guardian or the incapacitated person himself. The Supreme Court emphasized that a guardian is obligated to provide constant external care, which is objectively impossible for a person serving in the military during mobilization. Therefore, the courts concluded that appointing the guardianship and care authority as the guardian at this stage best serves the interests of the incapacitated person. At the same time, the applicant is not deprived of the right to file a similar application in the future, should the circumstances preventing the performance of guardian duties change.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 824/125/25 dated 30/07/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an appeal against the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to set aside the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) under the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by which debt under a foreign economic contract was recovered from a foreign company.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the powers of national courts when considering applications to set aside arbitration awards are strictly limited, as the court has no authority to review the merits of an arbitration award or re-evaluate evidence.
– The Court noted that the applicant’s arguments regarding the existence of force majeure circumstances and a breach of contract terms by the other party relate exclusively to the assessment of the factual circumstances of the case, which had already been the subject of arbitration review.
– Regarding the concept of “public policy,” the Court clarified that it is applied only in exceptional cases where an arbitration award threatens the fundamental principles of the legal order, independence, or constitutional rights of the state, which was not established in this dispute.
– The Court indicated that the dispute between the parties is of a private-law nature, arose on contractual grounds, and its resolution by arbitration does not affect the social or economic foundations of the state of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s reference to the Supreme Court’s practice regarding the non-emergence of obligations in the absence of advance payment, as these legal positions cannot serve as grounds for reviewing the merits of an arbitration award.
– Furthermore, the Court found the technical error of the court of first instance (referencing circumstances of another case) to be immaterial, as it did not affect the correctness of the conclusions on the merits of the dispute.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance.
Case No. 208/12461/24 of 07/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of an appellate court ruling that mitigated the sentence of a convicted person for intentional grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim, due to arguments by the prosecutor and the victim’s representative regarding substantial violations of procedural norms and the lack of proportionality between the imposed sentence and the gravity of the crime.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed a number of critical errors. First, the court failed to ensure proper notification of the victim and her representative regarding the date and time of the hearing, as the use of the “Viber” messenger without a corresponding application from the participant is not a lawful method of notification. Second, the appellate court failed to provide compelling reasons as to why the minimum sentence is sufficient for the rehabilitation of a person who committed particularly cruel acts (numerous blows with a stick and feet) and failed to provide assistance to the victim. The Court emphasized that punishment must not only be an act of retribution but also a means of rehabilitation, which requires taking into account the degree of the offender’s dangerousness. The appellate court ignored the fact that the convicted person showed contempt for human life by leaving a beaten person without assistance. The absence of a proper assessment of these circumstances led to the conclusion of the “manifest unfairness” of the imposed sentence due to its excessive leniency. As a result, the Supreme Court declared the contested decision illegal and unsubstantiated due to the violation of the requirements of criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, while selecting a preventive measure for the convicted person in the form of detention.
Case No. 990/508/25 of 07/01/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the non-admission of a candidate to the fourth stage of the qualification examination due to the setting of a passing score higher than the minimum permissible score.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court emphasized that the HQCJ is vested with discretionary powers to independently determine the conditions of selection, in particular, to set the passing score taking into account the number of vacant positions.
* The Grand Chamber clearly distinguished between the concepts of “average permissible score” (which confirms the successful completion of a stage) and “passing score” (which is a condition for further participation in the competition).
* Obtaining the average permissible score is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for proceeding to the next stage under conditions of a limited number of vacancies.
* The legislature deliberately did not fix the numerical values of scores in the law, granting the Commission the right to adapt them to the actual competitive situation of each specific selection.
* The Court emphasi—stating that interference in this process through individual adjustment of results would violate the principle of equality for all participants in the competition.
* The court also noted that it verifies only the High Qualification Commission of Judges’ (HQCJ) adherence to the limits of discretion and procedural requirements, rather than the expediency of the criteria established by the Commission.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, recognizing the actions of the HQCJ as lawful.
Case No. 642/5482/25 dated 07/29/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of establishing, in special proceedings, the fact of a father’s sole upbringing and maintenance of children for the purpose of obtaining a deferral from military conscription during mobilization.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that family obligations regarding the upbringing of children are inalienable and closely linked to the individual; therefore, they cannot be transferred to another person or terminated by agreement of the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the fact of sole child-rearing actually pertains to an assessment of the performance of parental duties by the other parent, which inevitably creates a dispute over rights. Since the law does not provide for the possibility of establishing such circumstances in an uncontested manner, this issue must be resolved exclusively through adversarial proceedings, where the court can fully examine evidence and protect the interests of the child. The court also emphasized that the institution of special proceedings cannot be used to create prejudicial facts that would substitute for adversarial procedures for resolving family disputes. Furthermore, the court noted that the existence of another court decision rendered in special proceedings does not change the legal nature of such relationships nor does it make them uncontested. Thus, the courts of lower instances correctly left the application without consideration, as the existing dispute over rights is subject to review under a different procedural order.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, confirming that an application for establishing the fact of sole child-rearing is not subject to consideration under special proceedings.
Case No. 450/142/24 dated 07/22/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of funds based on debt promissory notes issued within the framework of terminating joint business activities.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that notes which do not contain information regarding the fact of the transfer of funds (a loan) cannot automatically be considered a loan agreement.
– The court emphasized that the plaintiff substantiated her claims precisely on contractual relations, rather than on the defendant’s unjust enrichment.
– Although the principle of “the court knows the law” (jura novit curia) allowsallows the court to independently qualify legal relations, it is not limitless and cannot violate the parties’ right to an adversarial process.
– Re-qualifying a claim for the recovery of unjustifiably acquired funds (Art. 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) without corresponding demands from the plaintiff and proper argumentation during the proceedings would lead to a violation of the defendant’s right to defense.
– Since the plaintiff clearly defined the grounds for the claim as the non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, rather than a claim for restitution (condictio), the court of appeal rightfully refused to satisfy the claims, without going beyond the scope of the claims.
– The cassation court also emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by the court of appeal.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s resolution on the dismissal of the claim unchanged, and the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 607/5866/25 dated 07/31/2026
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decisions of the Ternopil City Council regarding the inventory and division of a land plot with an area of 15.26 hectares, as well as the recognition of the right to use individual parts thereof (0.06 hectares each) by members of a gardening association.
**2. Court Arguments**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that measures to secure a claim must be proportionate to the declared demands, and their application must be justified and necessary to prevent real risks of complicating the execution of a future decision.
* The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that failure to take measures to secure the claim would lead to the impossibility of protecting their rights, but merely expressed assumptions about the potential actions of the defendant.
* The court of appeal reasonably recognized that prohibiting the owner (the city council) from disposing of the entire land plot of 15.26 hectares is disproportionate, as the plaintiff’s interest concerns only a significantly smaller share (0.06 hectares).
* Regarding procedural issues, the court indicated that the consideration of a case by the same panel of judges within the framework of one proceeding is not grounds for recusal, as this is a consequence of the operation of the automated case distribution system.
* The court also clarified that the death of one of the plaintiffs does not require an automatic suspension of the proceedings in the case if the issue under consideration (securing the claim) is procedural and does not concern the examination of the case on its merits.
* Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicant did not provide convincing evidence that failure to take measures to secure the claim would make it impossible to execute the court’s decision in the future.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the appellate court’s resolution, which had canceled the measures to secure the claim, unchanged.
Case No. 521/314/24 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief legal conclusion:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of non-pecuniary (moral) damages from the Russian Federation caused to a civilian as a result of armed aggression and constant state of stress due to hostilities.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the armed aggression of the Russian Federation is a well-known fact that does not require proof, and an application to a Ukrainian court is the only available means of protecting violated rights. When determining the amount of compensation, the court applied the criteria of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, as non-pecuniary damage does not have a clear monetary equivalent. An important argument was that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of direct damage to her property or forced displacement; the absence of active hostilities directly in her place of residence was also taken into account. The court emphasized that the amount of compensation must be sufficient for satisfaction but must not lead to the unjustified enrichment of the person. The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly assessed the depth of mental suffering in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the cassation instance recognized that the lower courts did not violate the norms of substantive or procedural law when establishing the amount of compensation.
3. The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged, denying the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 736/1049/25 dated 07/30/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court of first instance’s application of release from serving a sentence with probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) to a person convicted of illegal sale of narcotic drugs.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, which revoked the suspended sentence of the convicted person based on the following arguments:
* The court emphasized that crimes in the field of drug trafficking have a high degree of public danger, as they infringe upon public health and contribute to the degradation of society.
* The appellate court reasonably pointed out that the young age of the convicted person and the presence of chronic illnesses are not automatic grounds for release from actual serving of the sentence, especially when the crime was committed for mercenary motives.
* The court emphasized that the simultaneous application of two institutions of mitigation — sentencing below the lowest limit (Art. 69 of the Criminal Code) and release from serving a sentence with probation (Art. 75 of the Criminal Code) — requires exceptionally compelling grounds, which were not established in this case.
* The Supreme Court agreed that the local court did not provide sufficient motives as to why a suspended sentence would be sufficient for the correction of a person who is unemployed and chose drug trafficking as a way to improve their financial situation.
* Also, the defense’s argument regarding…regarding the absence of grave consequences, since crimes under Article 307 of the Criminal Code have a formal corpus delicti, and the very fact of their commission already constitutes a significant public danger.
* The court noted that the appellate instance had duly considered all circumstances, including sincere remorse and cooperation with the investigation; however, it correctly determined that these do not outweigh the public danger of the committed act.
3. The Supreme Court left the judgment of the appellate court unchanged and the defense attorney’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, confirming the necessity of actual service of the sentence in the form of imprisonment.
Case No. 643/3330/24 dated 07/28/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of the lawfulness of returning an appeal filed by a probation agency against a court order of the first instance, which had denied the revocation of a convict’s release from serving a sentence with probation.
In its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that criminal procedural law clearly defines the circle of persons entitled to appellate review, and probation agencies are not included in this list. The court emphasized that although probation agencies have the right to address the court with relevant motions, judicial decisions resulting from their consideration do not directly violate the rights or interests of the probation agencies themselves. Ensuring the legality of such decisions is entrusted to the prosecutor, who is the proper subject for filing an appeal. The panel of judges also referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which confirmed the lack of the right to appeal for such institutions. Thus, the appellate court acted within the limits of the law when it returned the appeal to a person who is not endowed with the procedural right to file it. The Supreme Court emphasized that access to justice must be carried out in accordance with procedures established by law, which do not provide for an expansive interpretation of the circle of applicants in matters of sentence execution.
The Supreme Court left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged and the probation agency’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.
Case No. 911/1138/25 dated 07/01/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidating land lease agreements (unclaimed shares) and cancelling the state registration of property rights thereto due to a violation of the procedure for leasing the plots.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that unclaimed land shares (units) are not lands of state or communal ownership; therefore, the general requirements regarding the mandatory conduct of land auctions, provided for by Articles 124 and 134 of the Land Code of Ukraine, do not apply to them.
– The court noted that special Law No. 899-IV, which regulates the procedure for the disposition of such lands, does not contain requirements for conducting competitive procedures, regardless of the number of applicants for the lease.
– Importantit was concluded that the permission to develop technical documentation is merely a stage of pre-contractual relations and does not create a subjective right for a person to obtain a land plot, but only creates a legitimate interest.
– The Court established that since the land plots were formed precisely at the request of the defendant (LLC “Portal-agro”), who was the first to submit documents for approval, the local self-government body acted lawfully by giving priority to it.
– The plaintiff (LLC “Stor-agro”) failed to prove the violation of its rights, as it did not have a pre-emptive right to lease, and its interest was not supported by a completed procedure of land plot formation based on its application.
– The Court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of bad faith conduct by the local self-government body, the transfer of a land plot for lease to another person is not grounds for declaring the agreements invalid.
3. **Court Decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s resolution and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claim was dismissed in full.
Case No. 912/1509/24 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 analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Removal of obstacles in the use and disposition of a land plot of the nature reserve fund by demolishing an unauthorized extension to a restaurant and canceling the state registration of the land plot.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court established that the disputed land plot belongs to the lands of the nature reserve fund (“50 Years of October” park-monument), therefore any construction on it without appropriate approvals is illegal.
– It was determined that PE “Stanrem-250”, as the owner of the main restaurant building and the client of the construction works, is the proper defendant, since it is this person who creates obstacles in the use of the land.
– The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the application of administrative jurisdiction, indicating that the dispute has a private law nature, as it concerns the protection of the territorial community’s property right to the land.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant’s references to the practice regarding the demolition of objects under Part 7 of Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine are irrelevant, since Part 4 of the same article applies in this case (protection of the owner from unauthorized construction on his plot).
– The appellate court lawfully refused to accept new evidence from the “XXI Century” Corporation, as they were submitted in violation of procedural deadlines without valid reasons.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that a negatory claim (for removal of obstacles) is an effective method of protection in this situation, and the statute of limitations does not apply to such claims.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the resolution of the appellate commercial court unchanged, recognizing the prosecutor’s claims as well-founded and confirming the legality of the obligationan order to demolish unauthorized construction.
Case No. 905/775/25 of 08/04/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of pecuniary damage (losses) from the Russian Federation in the amount of over 2.8 billion hryvnias, caused as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine, which resulted in property losses for PJSC “CB “Pivdencombank”.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals, concluded that it was necessary to overturn the decisions of the lower courts due to violations of procedural law norms and incomplete examination of the circumstances of the case. The Court pointed out that the courts of first and appellate instances did not properly assess the issue of the jurisdictional immunity of the aggressor state in the context of current legal realities and Ukraine’s international obligations. It was also emphasized that it is important to correctly apply the mechanisms for proving losses caused as a result of hostilities, which requires a more thorough analysis of the causal link between the actions of the Russian Federation and the bank’s financial losses. The Supreme Court stressed that the courts did not ensure a full and comprehensive review of all the plaintiff’s arguments, which is a mandatory condition for rendering a lawful decision. As a result, the panel of judges recognized that establishing the truth in the case requires a re-examination of evidence, which cannot be performed at the stage of cassation proceedings. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial to rectify the procedural errors committed.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Donetsk Region.
Case No. 910/14874/25 of 08/04/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate commercial court’s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the Institute of Engineering Thermophysics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine missing the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Court emphasized that the right of access to a court is not absolute and must be limited by procedural deadlines to ensure the principle of legal certainty and the finality of court decisions.
2. The Supreme Court stressed that martial law in Ukraine is not an automatic ground for the extension of procedural deadlines; therefore, a party must prove the existence of specific, objective, and insurmountable circumstances that prevented the timely filing of an appeal.
3. The Court deemed the Institute’s arguments regarding the mobilization of its sole legal counsel to be subjective, as the organization of representation, including the engagement of attorneys or other authorized persons, falls within the internal sphere of responsibility of a legal entity.
4. The Court noted that the lack of access to the electronic cabinet was not supported by proper evidence of measures taken to restore it.
5. The Supreme Court[The Court] clarified that the commencement of the statute of limitations for filing an appeal is linked to the moment the decision is received in the electronic cabinet, rather than the date of actual receipt of a paper copy; therefore, citing the late receipt of paper documents is groundless.
6. Ultimately, the court concluded that the court of appeal correctly assessed the appellant’s arguments as failing to demonstrate the existence of objective obstacles, and that the cassation appeal was essentially aimed at a re-evaluation of the circumstances established by the court.
The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the Institute’s cassation appeal and to uphold the appellate court’s ruling on the refusal to initiate proceedings.
Case No. 910/16488/25 dated 14/07/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Verification of the legality of initiating bankruptcy proceedings for YE Energy LLC upon the application of the creditor Euroenergotrade LLC, given the existence of an outstanding debt confirmed by a court decision.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the debtor’s debt to the creditor is confirmed by a court decision that has entered into legal force, which excludes the existence of a dispute over rights that could impede the initiation of proceedings.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that holding a license for electricity supply does not make a company a “wholesale supplier” within the meaning of the special restrictions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures; therefore, there were no grounds for refusing to initiate the case.
– The court noted that although the ultimate beneficial owner of the debtor is under sanctions, this alone does not deprive the creditor of the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, provided it is not proven that the procedure is being used to withdraw assets from under sanctions.
– The panel of judges indicated that the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the practice of the Supreme Court are unfounded, as they amount to an attempt to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case, which is prohibited for a court of cassation instance.
– The court stressed that during the preparatory hearing, all necessary conditions were verified: the existence of debt, the absence of a dispute over rights, and the lack of evidence of the debtor fulfilling its obligations.
– It was established that the debtor did not provide any evidence of its solvency or debt repayment, which confirms the legitimacy of initiating the asset management procedure.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal unchanged, and dismissed the debtor’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 372/6654/24 dated 22/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Division of marital property, specifically the recognition of ownership rights to shares in an unfinished construction object and the land plot on which it is located.is located, as well as the payment of compensation for the vehicle.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed that an object of construction in progress, erected during the marriage, is an object of common joint property, even if it has not been commissioned.
– The Court emphasized the importance of the principle of the unity of the legal fate of a land plot and a house located on it, which is enshrined in Article 120 of the Land Code of Ukraine.
– The Court of Appeal erroneously refused to divide the land plot solely on the grounds that it was received by the defendant under a deed of gift, without taking into account that joint property of the spouses is located on it.
– The Court of Cassation indicated that the ownership right to a share in construction in progress may be recognized for each of the spouses, which eliminates uncertainty in the legal regime of the structure.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the degree of completion of an object is not an obstacle to its division if it is actually being utilized.
– Since the Court of Appeal did not properly investigate the issue of the relationship between the right to the house and the right to the land plot, the case was sent for a new trial.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the division of the land plot, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal, leaving other parts of the decision unchanged.
**Case No. 591/5513/16-k dated 07/28/2026**
Here is an analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute was the review of the judgment of the appellate instance, by which those convicted of attempted fraud on an especially large scale were sentenced to actual imprisonment, while the defense insisted on the illegality of the evidence and demanded release from serving the sentence on probation.
2. The Court of Cassation confirmed the legality of the qualification of the convicts’ actions, noting that for the elements of the crime of “fraud,” the presence of a victim with the appropriate procedural status is not mandatory, and the fact of using imitation funds does not refute the presence of intent to seize another’s property. The Supreme Court admitted as admissible evidence obtained during secret investigative (search) actions, indicating that the consideration of motions by another appellate court (due to a refusal in the first) does not violate the right to a fair trial. Regarding investigative jurisdiction, the court emphasized that at the initial stage of the investigation, the military prosecutor’s office had objective grounds for conducting actions, and after the reclassification, the proceedings were transferred to the NABU, which complies with the requirements of the law. At the same time, the court pointed out that the appellate instance made a mistake by imposing a sentence below the minimum limit without applying Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, but could not worsen the position of the convicts due to the absence of a cassation appeal from the prosecutor. Considering the advanced age of one of the convicts, the presence of young children in another, the lengthy judicial prconsideration and the absence of actual damages, the court concluded that it was possible to rehabilitate the individuals without isolation from society.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals of the defense attorneys, amending the appellate court’s judgment regarding the sentence and releasing the convicted persons from serving it on probation (probation period of 3 years).
Case No. 760/15292/20 of 29/07/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court of first instance’s judgment and the appellate court’s ruling in criminal proceedings concerning a knowingly false report about the mining of a critical infrastructure facility.
2. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court committed significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law, as it effectively ignored key defense arguments. In particular, the convicted person claimed that the court of first instance had groundlessly replaced his defense attorney, with whom a legal position had been agreed upon, and did so without the consent of the accused himself. Moreover, the court decision contained inaccurate information stating that the defendant himself was the initiator of such a replacement, which contradicts the case materials. Since the appellate court did not provide reasoned responses to these serious claims regarding the violation of the right to defense, its decision cannot be considered lawful and well-founded. The Supreme Court emphasized that ensuring the right to defense and equality of parties are fundamental principles that cannot be ignored by the appellate court. Therefore, to verify these circumstances, the case must be reconsidered.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the convicted person, set aside the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 461/4457/23 of 15/07/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the place of residence of a minor child between parents who live separately and are in a state of long-term conflict.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the priority of the child’s best interests, which must prevail over the interests and desires of the parents.
– It was established that both parents properly fulfill their duties, have appropriate material and living conditions, and are positively characterized; therefore, neither of them has an a priori priority in upbringing.
– The court deemed it appropriate to apply a joint physical custody model (the child residing alternately with each parent), as this facilitates the preservation of the child’s emotional contact with both parents and minimizes conflict.
– The child’s desire to study at a specific institution was taken into account; therefore, the court ordered the parents to ensure
