Case No. 751/9954/24 dated 03/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 751/9954/24:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Determination of an additional period for the acceptance of an inheritance due to the expiration of the six-month term established by law.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the premise that the heir took active steps to accept the inheritance within the statutory period by contacting a notary and sending an application by mail.
* A key factor was that the plaintiff sent the application to the address of a notary office that had effectively ceased operations at that location due to destruction caused by hostilities, a fact of which the heir, who resides in another city and is a military serviceman, could objectively be unaware.
* The court recognized that the circumstances under which the letter was returned due to the expiration of the retention period constituted objective and insurmountable obstacles that did not arise through the fault of the heir.
* The Court of Appeal took into account the insignificant duration of the delay and the good faith of the plaintiff, who, immediately upon the return of the letter, sent the application to another notary office.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessment of the validity of reasons for missing a deadline is conducted on an individual basis, and that interference by the court of cassation with established factual circumstances of a case and the assessment of evidence is inadmissible.
* The court noted that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to support their actions, and the arguments of the cassation appeal amounted merely to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which is not grounds for overturning a lawful decision.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal, recognizing the reasons for the missed deadline as valid and granting the plaintiff three months to accept the inheritance.
Case No. 173/919/25 dated 22/07/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Determination of the place of residence of two minor children between former spouses who hold opposing positions regarding the model of upbringing (the mother insists on them residing with her, while the father advocates for alternating residence on a “two weeks on, two weeks off” schedule).
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the lower courts prematurely applied a model of shared physical custody without properly analyzing the best interests of the children. The Court emphasized that in resolving such disputes, it is necessary to consider not only the equality of parental rights but also the stability of the child’s environment, their psychological state, and their opinion (in particular, the child’s objection to residing with the father). An important factor is the existence of a prolonged conflict between the parents, which makes effective coordination during alternating residence impossible. The courts did not examineor whether such a change of residence would cause harm to the children, as the parties did not provide expert opinions regarding the advisability of such a model. It was also emphasized that the courts did not assess the logistical difficulties associated with the parents residing in different settlements 40 km apart. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the decision was rendered without properly ascertaining whether the chosen upbringing model serves the best interests of the children.
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. 646/306/25 dated 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 for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is an application by a wife to declare her husband, a serviceman who went missing while performing a combat mission, deceased.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that declaring a person deceased is a legal fiction that has strict time limitations established by Article 46 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court emphasized that under conditions of ongoing active hostilities, it is impossible to objectively establish the date of death; therefore, the six-month period for filing an application with the court cannot be calculated from the date of disappearance if the territory remains a zone of active hostilities. The court noted that such a period is a “safeguard” that protects the rights of the missing person in case they are in captivity or have changed their location due to danger. Since the settlement where the serviceman went missing officially belonged to a zone of active hostilities at the time of the case consideration, the court deemed the application premature. The Supreme Court also indicated that it lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence that has already been examined by the appellate instance if the court decision is reasoned. In summary, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between legal certainty for relatives and the protection of the rights of the missing person themselves.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which denied the application to declare the person deceased.
Case No. 524/3146/23 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:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot and a residential house by demolishing an unauthorized construction object on an adjacent plot and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the defendant is carrying out new construction without proper permitting documentationwhich, by law, is classified as unauthorized construction.
– The expert examination confirmed that the object was erected in violation of State Building Norms (DBN) regarding the distance to the boundary of the adjacent land plot.
– The court concluded that the demolition of only those specific parts of the building that violate the regulatory setbacks is a sufficient and proportionate measure to protect the plaintiff’s rights, whereas the total demolition of the object would be excessive.
– Regarding non-pecuniary (moral) damage, the court noted that filing appeals to state authorities and participating in judicial proceedings do not, in themselves, constitute evidence of the infliction of moral suffering.
– The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence to confirm a disrespectful attitude on the part of the developer or the fact that psychological harm was caused to her; therefore, the claim was not satisfied in this part.
– The allocation of legal costs for the expert examination was carried out by the court in proportion to the satisfied claims, which complies with the requirements of procedural law.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the partial satisfaction of the claim.
Case No. 916/1319/26 of 03/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Determination of the legal nature of the claims (pecuniary or non-pecuniary) for the purposes of paying court fees in a case initiated by a public organization regarding the termination of possession of real estate and the return of land plots to communal ownership.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The court emphasized the basic principle of dispositivity: it is the plaintiff who determines the subject and grounds of the claim, and the court has no right to change them on its own at the stage of opening proceedings.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that claims aimed at protecting environmental rights and the interests of the territorial community by removing obstacles (negatory action) are, in their essence, non-pecuniary.
– The court noted that the use of the wording “return the property” in the prayer for relief does not automatically make the claim pecuniary, as the defining factor is the content of the claim, which is aimed at restoring the legal regime of the lands, rather than obtaining the property into the ownership or use of the plaintiff.
– The defendant’s arguments regarding the need to assess the value of the property were rejected, as the stated claims concerning registration actions do not depend on the monetary valuation of the objects.
– The court also emphasized that when appealing a ruling on the return of a claim, the appellate instance has the right to verify the legality of the ruling on leaving the claim without movement in order to avoid excessive formalism and to ensure the right of access to justice.
– The Supreme CourtThe court indicated that questions regarding the legal nature of the disputed plots and the merits of the claims must be resolved during the consideration of the case on the merits, rather than at the stage of deciding on the commencement of proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate commercial court, which had set aside the order returning the statement of claim, having recognized the plaintiff’s claims as non-pecuniary.
Case No. 635/4475/25 of 08/04/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Judicial establishment of the fact of death of a citizen of Ukraine on the territory of the Russian Federation for the purpose of subsequent state registration of this fact with the Civil Registry Office (DRATS) of Ukraine.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the fact that the death certificate held by the applicant, issued by the authorities of the Russian Federation, is an official document confirming the fact of the person’s death.
* The key regulatory act relied upon by the court was the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 107 of February 4, 2023.
* This resolution permits the acceptance on the territory of Ukraine of documents issued by authorities of foreign states (including the Russian Federation) without special certification (apostille or legalization) during the period of martial law, provided such documents were accepted without certification as of February 24, 2022.
* Since the death certificate is valid and recognized in Ukraine, there is no legal necessity for the additional judicial establishment of the fact of death.
* The court emphasized that the applicant is not deprived of the opportunity to use the existing death certificate in legal relations on the territory of Ukraine, and judicial establishment of the fact is excessive, as the fact of death is already confirmed by an appropriate document.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the rules of substantive law, and the arguments of the appeal regarding the impossibility of using the document due to martial law do not refute its legal force in Ukraine in accordance with the current Cabinet of Ministers resolution.
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. 554/8934/25 of 08/04/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to commence proceedings due to the applicant’s failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against the court decision of the first instance.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, emphasizing that engaging an attorney in the case is not an objective obstacle that justifies missing a procedural deadline. The court noted that an attorney acts on behalf of the client and is not a separate entity, thits appearance automatically “resets” the deadlines for filing an appeal. Each party bears the risk of the consequences of their own inaction, and the right to access the court does not imply the right to neglect procedural deadlines. The court emphasized that valid reasons can only include objectively insurmountable circumstances that were beyond the applicant’s control. Since the applicant was present during the announcement of the decision and received a copy of it, she had sufficient time to exercise her right. Therefore, the refusal of the appellate court was recognized as lawful and consistent with the principle of legal certainty.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged.
Case No. 161/16048/23 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:** Cassation review of the legality of an acquittal regarding a person accused of facilitating the illegal transportation of persons liable for military service across the state border under the guise of volunteer activities (Part 2 of Article 332, Part 1 of Article 366 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt lies exclusively with the prosecution, which the prosecutor failed to do in this instance.
* The appellate court rightfully refused to re-examine evidence, as the prosecutor did not provide reasonable grounds for why such evidence had not been duly examined by the court of first instance or why its assessment had been erroneous.
* The court established that, according to the Charter of the charitable organization, the authority to sign documents and represent the fund belonged to the director, not the founder (the accused), which casts doubt on the prosecution’s theory regarding his key role in the criminal scheme.
* Expert reports on handwriting turned out to be probabilistic rather than categorical, which does not allow for the definitive assertion that it was the accused who signed the letters requesting driver exemptions.
* The pre-trial investigation body failed to take appropriate measures to interrogate key witnesses (in particular, the drivers who went abroad), which led to a lack of direct evidence of the person’s involvement in the incriminated acts.
* The court of cassation instance emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new facts, but only reviews the correctness of the application of legal norms, and found no such violations in this proceeding.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the appellate court unchanged and dismissed the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, definitively confirming the person’s acquittal.
Case No. 442/4171/21 of 07/27/2026
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Cassation review of criminal proceedings regarding the legality of the conviction of an individual under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal acquisition and possession with intent to distribute narcotic drugs) and the correctness of the imposition of an additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the guilt of the convicted person was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of witnesses (penitentiary facility staff and attesting witnesses), who documented the fact of the discovery of narcotics in the possession of the convicted person.
* The panel of judges rejected the defense’s version of “finding” the narcotics for the purpose of their subsequent surrender, as the convicted person, being a law enforcement officer, failed to take any measures to report this to his superiors at the checkpoint.
* The court recognized the lawfulness of using electronic storage media (data on telephone connections) as evidence, referring to the established practice of the Supreme Court that copies of electronic documents are deemed originals.
* Regarding the qualification, the court confirmed that the method of packaging the narcotics, the absence of addiction in the convicted person, and his conduct indicate the intent to distribute rather than personal consumption.
* The court also confirmed the lawfulness of the investigation conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), as employees of penitentiary institutions, according to the law, belong to the category of law enforcement officers.
* At the same time, the court took a critical view of the imposition of confiscation of property, as the proceedings did not establish the presence of a mercenary motive in the actions of the convicted person, which is a mandatory condition for the application of such an additional penalty.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, excluding from the verdict the reference to the commission of the crime for mercenary motives and canceling the additional penalty in the form of confiscation of property, while leaving the primary penalty of imprisonment unchanged.
Case No. 757/41843/24-c of 08/03/2026
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The plaintiff sought to recover moral damages from the State Budget, allegedly caused to her by unlawful court decisions of the Cherkasy Court of Appeal and the actions of a specific judge during the consideration of another case.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court confirmed that judges and courts, as bodies of justice, possess procedural immunity and cannot act as defendants in cases challenging their procedural actions or rendered decisions. The court emphasized that the legality of a judge’s actions during the consideration of a specific case cannot be reviewed.by initiating a separate lawsuit against him, as this would violate the principles of judicial independence. In such disputes, the proper defendant can only be the state, not a specific court or judge acting on its behalf. The Supreme Court also clarified that the concept of a “case not subject to consideration under civil proceedings” encompasses not only disputes belonging to a different jurisdiction but also those not subject to judicial review at all. Since legal claims against a court and a judge as defendants are legally impossible, the appellate court rightfully closed the proceedings in this part. Thus, the plaintiff’s attempt to review the results of the case through a new lawsuit for moral damages was deemed contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the objectives of civil proceedings.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 725/8219/25 dated 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the first-instance court’s decision regarding the establishment of the fact of a father independently raising and maintaining a minor child, initiated for the purpose of obtaining a deferment from military service mobilization.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court confirmed the right of Territorial Recruitment Centers (TCCs) to appeal decisions in cases where private law instruments (establishing a legal fact) are used to avoid the performance of public duties, specifically mobilization.
– The Court emphasized that the mere fact of a father living separately from a child is not automatic proof that the mother is evading her upbringing duties, as family responsibilities are inalienable and equal for both parents.
– It was established that to confirm the fact of independent upbringing, evidence of the termination or limitation of the mother’s parental rights is required (e.g., a court decision on deprivation of rights, a death certificate, etc.), which the plaintiff failed to provide.
– The Court noted that utilizing judicial procedures to create “artificial” conditions for the purpose of obtaining a mobilization deferment constitutes an abuse of rights, which contradicts the principles of good faith and justice.
– The Supreme Court indicated that the local court did not properly examine the level of emotional relations, the ability of each parent to care for the child, and failed to involve the guardianship authority, which indicates an incomplete judicial review in the first instance.
– The Court emphasized that private law relations cannot be used to create prejudicial facts that affect public law.duties of a citizen to the state.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had denied the establishment of the fact of raising a child as a single parent.
Case No. 902/1364/24 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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 recovery of funds paid by the plaintiff as an advance payment under a construction contract, based on the provisions regarding unjust enrichment (Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) due to the alleged non-conclusion of the contract and non-performance of work by the contractor.
2. The court of cassation emphasized that the existence of contractual relations (even if confirmed by conclusive actions, such as payment of invoices and registration of tax invoices) excludes the possibility of applying Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine until the contract is terminated. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court took a formal approach to the case, limiting itself only to stating the existence of the contract, but did not properly examine the evidence of the performance or non-performance of work by the contractor. The Court emphasized that the advance payment is subject to return only in the event of failure to fulfill obligations, which must be confirmed by the courts through an assessment of the evidence submitted by the parties. It was also noted that the customer has the right to refuse the construction contract in accordance with Article 849 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in the event of a breach of performance deadlines by the contractor. The appellate court did not evaluate the plaintiff’s letter regarding the refusal to perform the contract, which is critically important for resolving the dispute. As a result, the Supreme Court found the conclusions of the appellate court to be premature and inconsistent with the requirements for the completeness and objectivity of the examination of the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate commercial court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance for proper examination of evidence and legal assessment of the parties’ actions.
Case No. 925/222/25 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** An association of co-owners of an apartment building (OSBB) filed a lawsuit against the distribution system operator (Oblenergo) to invalidate provisions of the contract regarding the inclusion of building-wide meters in the list of settlement meters and to mandate a recalculation of the volumes of consumed electricity exclusively based on meters for common areas.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances reached contradictory conclusions by refusing to recognize as invalidterms of the agreement, while simultaneously obligating the regional power distribution company (oblenergo) to perform settlements contrary to the terms of that same agreement. The court emphasized that payments for electricity consumed by a Condominium Association (OSBB) must be made based on meters connected to equipment owned by the OSBB, rather than on whole-building meters which serve the function of technical control. At the same time, the court stressed the necessity of verifying the effectiveness of the chosen method of rights protection, since granting the claim without declaring the disputed contract clauses invalid creates legal uncertainty. The courts failed to provide a proper assessment of the parties’ arguments regarding the compliance of the contract terms with legislative requirements (specifically the Retail Electricity Market Rules and the Commercial Metering Code) and did not fully examine the evidence relevant to the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were premature and adopted in violation of procedural law.
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 Commercial Court of Cherkasy Region.
Case No. 910/10819/25 dated 05/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an application for an additional decision regarding the distribution of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred in the court of cassation instance.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court confirmed that the right to reimbursement of legal assistance expenses is absolute, provided that the party has complied with procedural deadlines and properly substantiated the amount of expenses.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that although the service agreement provides for a fixed fee, this does not deprive the court of the right to assess the proportionality of the claimed amount against the complexity of the case and the scope of work actually performed.
– The court established that the response to the cassation appeal prepared by the attorney was similar in content to previous procedural documents, and the plaintiff’s legal position had been formed back at the stage of the first instance.
– The lack of evidence regarding additional comprehensive study of the case at the cassation stage served as the basis for the conclusion that the claimed amount (19,000 UAH) does not fully meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality.
– The court applied the principle of fairness, noting that expenses must not only be actually incurred but also necessary and justified in view of the outcome of the case.
– Taking these circumstances into account, the court exercised its right to reduce the amount of expenses subject to reimbursement to a level it deemed justified for this dispute.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the application, ordering JSC “Ky“Yvgaz” in favor of LLC “Ukrainian Business Center” in the amount of 10,000 UAH for legal assistance expenses instead of the claimed 19,000 UAH.
Case No. 916/1002/24 dated 08/05/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 916/1002/24:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of state enforcement officers regarding the termination of enforcement proceedings in connection with the debtor’s (LLC “TEDIS Ukraine”) alleged actual compliance with the court decision to cease violations of antitrust legislation.
2. The court of appeal, with which the Supreme Court agreed, established that the state enforcement officers acted prematurely and without proper verification of the facts. The main error of the enforcement officers was that they limited themselves only to a formal examination of the debtor’s financial statements, which indicated only a reduction in the volume of activities, and not the elimination of anti-competitive violations. The court emphasized that the debtor’s obligations under the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee (AMC) were of a non-monetary nature: the development and implementation of a transparent pricing mechanism and the elimination of restrictions for buyers. Since the debtor did not provide evidence of taking active steps to bring its pricing and contractual policies into compliance with the law, references to unprofitability or the cessation of trade are not grounds for terminating the enforcement proceedings. Thus, the state enforcement officers did not fulfill their duty to verify the actual elimination of the violations established by the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the court of appeal, by which the actions of the state enforcement officers were recognized as unlawful, and the resolutions on the termination of enforcement proceedings were canceled.
Case No. 917/1414/25 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: The plaintiff (JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya”) sought through the court to compel the defendant (PE “Company “Nadezhda”) to return petroleum products transferred for storage, which were destroyed as a result of enemy shelling.
2. Arguments of the court:
* The court established that the petroleum products were destroyed as a result of a direct hit by weapons of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, which was confirmed by appropriate evidence (fire reports, inventory acts, and a certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine).
* The courts of previous instances correctly applied Article 607 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as the obligation was terminated due to the impossibility of performance resulting from circumstances for which neither party bears responsibility.
* The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous judicial practice, pointing out that the circumstances in the cases cited by the appellant are not similar to the circumstances of this dispute.u.
* The Court emphasized that the defendant had duly fulfilled the terms of the contract regarding notification of force majeure; therefore, there were no grounds for applying Article 945 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (regarding the obligation to change storage conditions).
* The cassation instance also noted that the questions the plaintiff attempted to pose to the defendant through a written interrogation procedure did not concern circumstances relevant to the case.
* Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant’s arguments essentially amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which falls outside the scope of the cassation court’s authority.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court, and in all other respects, dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Case No. 910/2459/25 dated 04/08/2026
The subject of the dispute is the claim of Pulp Mill Print LLC to invalidate the decisions of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the imposition of sanctions.
In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts did not fully examine all circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. The panel of judges pointed to the need for a more thorough analysis of the evidence upon which the AMCU’s decisions were based, as the legality of the enforcement measures applied to the plaintiff depends on this. The Court emphasized that commercial courts must ensure adherence to the principle of adversarial proceedings and provide a proper assessment of both parties’ arguments in the context of antitrust legislation. Since violations of procedural law occurred during the proceedings in the courts of first and appellate instances, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances, the Supreme Court deemed it impossible to render a new decision on its own. Therefore, to eliminate the identified shortcomings and ensure the completeness of the judicial review, the case was remanded for a new trial. This approach guarantees that the final decision will be based on a comprehensive examination of the case materials, which is key to protecting the rights of business entities and complying with legal requirements.
The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, set aside the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv.
Case No. 531/3160/24 dated 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to deprive his ex-wife of parental rights regarding their joint minor son due to her all**
