Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 10/08/2026

Case No. 354/595/15-ц of 07/29/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a forestry land plot from unlawful possession in favor of the state, which was illegally transferred into private ownership on the basis of forged documents.

**2. Court Arguments**
* The court established that the disputed plot belongs to the forest fund lands, which were in permanent use by a state enterprise, and their withdrawal occurred in violation of the procedure established by law.
* Based on the materials of the criminal proceedings, the court confirmed that the village council’s decision on the transfer of land into private ownership was fictitious and adopted within the framework of a criminal scheme, which indicates that the property left the possession of the state against its will.
* The court emphasized that since the property left the possession of the state against its will, it is subject to vindication (recovery) from any acquirer, regardless of whether they are a bona fide purchaser, in accordance with Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* Regarding the statute of limitations, the court recognized the delay as justifiable, since criminal proceedings had been ongoing for a long time, during which the facts of document forgery were established, which objectively made it impossible to apply to the court earlier.
* The court noted that the claim to invalidate the state deed (title document) is an ineffective method of protection; therefore, the lawful method is precisely a vindication claim for the recovery of property.
* The court also emphasized that the acquirers of the plot, by exercising reasonable diligence, could and should have known that the plot belongs to the forest fund lands and is not subject to privatization.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the prosecutor had the right to file a lawsuit in the interests of the state, as the authorized bodies did not take proper measures to return the state property.

**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the prosecutor’s lawsuit was satisfied and the land plot was recovered from unlawful possession into state ownership.

Case No. 824/17/26 of 07/30/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is an appellate appeal against a court ruling on the refusal to take measures to secure the claim (attachment of corporate rights and assets of Ukrainian companies) within the framework of arbitration proceedings regarding a dispute between two Cypriot companies concerning the execution of a share purchase agreement.

2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that securing a claim is an exceptional measure that is applied only in the presence of real, rather than hypothetical, risks that the failure to take such actions will complicate the enforcement of a future arbitration award.
* The Supreme CThe Court noted that the applicant failed to provide proper evidence of the respondent’s bad faith conduct or a real threat of asset alienation, limiting itself to mere assumptions.
* The Court emphasized that the requested security measures were not proportionate to the claims, as the applicant did not even specify the exact amount of damages it was seeking to protect.
* An important factor was the establishment of the fact of “double security”: similar measures had already been taken by the District Court of Limassol, which precludes the duplication of such restrictions within the Ukrainian jurisdiction.
* The Court also noted that there were no grounds for “piercing the corporate veil” (arresting the assets of companies that are not parties to the dispute but are controlled by the respondent) in this case, as no abuse of corporate structure was proven.
* Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the court of first instance’s conclusions, indicating that the appellant’s arguments do not refute the absence of a justified risk to the enforcement of the decision.

3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on the refusal to secure the claim.

**Case No. 608/1029/23 dated 05/08/2026**

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the transfer of a state-owned land plot into private ownership and its subsequent recovery by the prosecutor in the interests of the territorial community due to the alleged lack of intent of the primary acquirer.

2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the lower courts correctly assessed the evidence, in particular, by establishing the fact of the citizen’s intent to receive the land, which is confirmed by his applications and subsequent notarial actions. The Court emphasized that materials of criminal proceedings do not have prejudicial significance for civil proceedings and are assessed by the court on general grounds as documentary evidence. An important aspect was the application of the principle of “good governance,” according to which the risk of errors by state bodies should not be shifted onto bona fide purchasers of property. At the same time, the Court drew attention to a violation of the rules of subject-matter jurisdiction, since a dispute involving a legal entity (a lessee) must be considered under commercial, rather than civil proceedings. In accordance with the position set forth in the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated May 5, 2025, in case No. 199/9897/22, the Court recognized that part of the claims against the legal entity is subject to consideration by a commercial court. The Court in this case effectively confirmed the mandatory compliance with jurisdictional rules, overturning the decisions regarding the claims against the legal entity and closing the proceedings, which is consistent with the practice of delimiting competence between civil and commercial courts.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal: it overturned the decisions of the lower courts regardingof the requirements for the agricultural enterprise and closed the proceedings in this part, while upholding the court decisions in the remaining part.

Case No. 725/10260/25 dated 06/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The plaintiff sought to dissolve the marriage through the court, determine the place of residence of his minor son with him, and establish the legal fact of the child being raised solely by the father.

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The court established that the parents had entered into a notarized agreement providing for the joint participation of both parents in the upbringing of the child, which refutes the plaintiff’s assertion regarding his “sole” upbringing.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that parental responsibilities are inalienable, and the fact that parents live separately does not mean that one of them is automatically removed from performing their parental duties.
* The court concluded that the lawsuit was aimed at artificially creating legal grounds for obtaining a mobilization deferment, which constitutes an abuse of private law instruments.
* The right of the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TCC) to appeal such decisions was confirmed, as they directly affect the public interests of the state in the sphere of mobilization.
* The court noted that the absence of a dispute between the parents regarding the upbringing of the child indicates the absence of an infringed right that would require judicial protection.
* It was established that the evidence provided by the plaintiff only confirms the fact that the child resides with the father, but does not prove the mother’s evasion of her duties.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which denied the claims for establishing the fact of the child being raised solely by the father.

Case No. 175/167/24 dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 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:** Recognition of property rights to an apartment and its recovery from unlawful possession due to a developer’s double sale of property rights to the same real estate object.

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The court established that the plaintiff had fulfilled the terms of the investment agreement by paying funds for the property rights, which is confirmed by the cash receipt order and the reconciliation statement of settlements.
* The developer did not provide evidence that would refute the fact of receiving the funds, in particular, it did not initiate a handwriting examination of the signature on the cash documents.
* The court emphasized that the developer’s violation of cash discipline (accepting cash above the limit) is its internal responsibility to the state, but it does not cancel the fact of the buyer’s fulfillment of obligations.
* Since the investor acquires property rights that transform into ownership rights after full payment, the developer had no legal grounds to repeatedly alienate this object to others.person.
* The recovery of property from a bona fide purchaser in this case was recognized as an effective remedy, as the original investor was deprived of the right to the property as a result of the developer’s wrongful actions.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not re-evaluate evidence, and the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive law, taking into account the positions of the Grand Chamber regarding the protection of investors’ rights.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the developer’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and upheld the appellate court’s resolution, which ruled in favor of the investor.

Case No. 466/3323/24 of 03/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided Supreme Court decision. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from the state of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and expenses for professional legal assistance caused to a person as a result of their unlawful criminal prosecution and prolonged period under investigation and trial.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court confirmed that the fact of a person’s acquittal is an unconditional ground for compensation for damage caused by pre-trial investigation bodies and the prosecutor’s office, regardless of the existence of fault of specific officials.
– Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the court applied the presumption of its occurrence by the very fact of unlawful criminal prosecution, which relieves the plaintiff of the obligation to prove physical or mental suffering through expert findings.
– The amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage was determined by the court based on the legally established minimum (for each month under investigation), which complies with the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
– Expenses for legal assistance were recognized as actual damages subject to compensation based on the special Law No. 266/94-VR, rather than general norms of civil procedure, and therefore do not require resolution within the framework of criminal proceedings.
– The court rejected the prosecutor’s office’s arguments regarding the impossibility of compensation due to martial law and the budget deficit, emphasizing that the state’s constitutional obligation to compensate for damages has no exceptions under such conditions.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been properly examined by the lower courts.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which partially satisfied the claim, confirming the plaintiff’s right to receive compensation from the funds of the State Budget of Ukraine.

Case No. 910/5790/25 of 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise analysis for your material:

**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The dispute concerns the legality of the closure of appellate proceedings following an appeal by the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPFU)), who attempted to appeal the decision of the court of first instance in a case where he was not a party, claiming a violation of his rights as a property owner.

**2. Court’s Arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal for a person who did not participate in the case arises only when the court decision directly resolves issues concerning their rights, interests, or obligations.
* The Supreme Court noted that such a connection must be evident and unconditional, and not based on the appellant’s assumptions regarding the potential impact of the decision on their activities.
* In the present case, the court determined that the appealed decision concerned only the actions of the Regional Office of the State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPFU), not the Fund itself as a legal entity, and did not create any new obligations for it.
* The court stressed that internal issues concerning the management of regional units by the Fund do not constitute grounds for appealing court decisions rendered in disputes between other persons.
* The SPFU’s arguments regarding its general powers as a privatization body were recognized as insufficient, as they do not prove a violation of specific rights within the scope of this particular dispute.
* Accordingly, the appellate court rightfully closed the proceedings, as it was established that there was no legal connection between the subject of the dispute and the rights of the Fund.

**3. Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court on closing the proceedings and dismissed the cassation appeal of the State Property Fund of Ukraine.

Case No. 344/1355/22 dated 04/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the sentencing for the commission of an especially grave crime in the field of drug trafficking, specifically the issue of the possibility of releasing the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that sentencing must comply with the principles of justice, proportionality, and individualization, taking into account not only the data on the offender but also the nature and dangerousness of the committed act. The court noted that the appellate instance rightfully considered the especially large quantity of psychotropic substances and the systematic nature of the organized group’s criminal activity, which precludes the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, the court emphasized that the appellate court properly assessed mitigating circumstances, such as sincere repentance and cooperation in solving the crime, by applying the provisions of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to impose a sentence below the minimum threshold established by the sanction of the article. The cassation instance concluded that the imposed actual sentence of 4 years of imprisonment is sufficient for the correction of the convicted person and the prevention of new crimes. The court found no grounds to consider such a sentence manifestly unjust or excessively severe, as it complies with the requirements of the law and the degree of gravity of the committed offense.

The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the defense attorney.Case No. 120/4140/25 dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the military commissariat regarding the calculation and payment to a serviceman of the indexation of monetary allowance, one-time financial assistance upon discharge, and compensation for the loss of a portion of income in connection with the violation of the terms of their payment.

2. The Court, while analyzing the issue of compensation for the loss of a portion of income, departed from previous practice that required the mandatory actual receipt of income before applying to the court, and took into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 07/05/2026. The Court distinguished payments into periodic (indexation) and one-time (one-time assistance, health-improvement assistance), noting that compensation for the loss of a portion of income applies only to systematic payments. Regarding the one-time financial assistance upon discharge, the Court confirmed that the period of previous service is not taken into account if the person had already acquired the right to such payment upon a previous discharge, regardless of the fact of its receipt. The Court clearly distinguished between the concepts of “acquiring a right” and “exercising a right” to payment, indicating that the acquisition of the right itself is decisive for the application of exceptions in the law. The Court also emphasized that claims for compensation for the loss of a portion of income regarding indexation are not premature, even if the principal amount has not yet been paid, as this right can be protected within the framework of a single lawsuit. In conclusion, the Court recognized that indexation is of a systematic nature and therefore subject to compensation, whereas one-time assistance is not.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to calculate compensation for the loss of a portion of income on the amount of unpaid indexation and rendered a new decision satisfying the claim in this part, while leaving the other conclusions of the courts unchanged.

Case No. 320/14687/25 dated 05/08/2026
Here 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 initiate proceedings due to the tax authority’s alleged failure to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against the court of first instance’s decision.

2. The Supreme Court, in its decision, was guided by the principle of the priority of access to justice over excessive procedural formalism. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance is obliged to independently verify information from the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS) regarding the time of delivery of a court decision to the electronic cabinet. Since the decision was delivered after 17:00, the day of its service is considered to be the next business day, which automatically puts the appeal within the time limit established by law. The Supreme Court noted that even if the appellant did not file a separate motion to reinstate the time limit, the courtThe court does not have the right to refuse to initiate proceedings if the case materials and official data of the system indicate that the deadline was not actually missed. Refusing to initiate proceedings solely due to the absence of a “paper” application, when there is objective evidence of compliance with the deadlines, constitutes a violation of the right to appellate review. Thus, the appellate court should not have refused to initiate proceedings, but rather taken into account the official data regarding the delivery time of the document.

3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and remanded the case to the court of appellate instance for further consideration.

Case No. 132/3596/24 of 08/03/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings due to the military unit missing the deadline for filing an appeal against the court of first instance’s decision to establish the fact of a person’s dependency.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal must be exercised within the time limits established by law, and their restoration is possible only in the presence of objectively insurmountable circumstances beyond the applicant’s control.
* The Supreme Court established that the military unit was aware of the existence of the court decision as early as June 4, 2025, and received a copy of the decision through the “Electronic Court” system on June 9, 2025.
* The appellant’s arguments that the deadline should be calculated from the moment of the representative’s actual familiarization with the case materials in paper form (June 23) were rejected by the court as groundless.
* The court noted that procedural errors or negligence by the military unit’s representative cannot be grounds for restoring the deadline, as this violates the principle of legal certainty and the balance of interests of the parties.
* The discretionary powers of the appellate court in deciding on the restoration of the deadline were exercised lawfully, as the appellant did not provide evidence of valid reasons for the delay.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the period for filing an appeal begins from the moment of service of the court decision, not from the moment of additional familiarization with the case materials in court.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the military unit’s cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court.

Case No. 507/341/22 of 08/04/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to a land share (paii) by way of inheritance by law following the death of the plaintiff’s mother.

2. The court established that the right to a land share (paii) arises for a member of a collective agricultural enterprise (KSP) only on the condition that the person was a member of such an enterprise at the time it received the state deed for the right of collective ownership.for land and was included in the relevant list. In this case, the plaintiff’s mother died before the approval of the lists of members of KSP “Ivanivske” who were entitled to land share allocation, which took place on February 20, 1996. Since the decedent’s legal capacity had already ceased due to death at the time the legal grounds for land share allocation arose, she did not acquire the right to a land share. Consequently, this right could not become part of the estate and pass to the plaintiff. The court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of procedural rights, noting that the appellate court had sufficient grounds to consider the case in the absence of the parties due to the lack of evidence of valid reasons for their failure to appear. The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not re-evaluate evidence and that the challenged decisions comply with the norms of substantive law.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.

Case No. 344/577/24 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** An employee filed a lawsuit against an employer to recover outstanding severance pay and compensation for unused vacation days, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, were incorrectly calculated due to the exclusion of a one-time bonus and additional social leave.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court determined that the bonus paid to the plaintiff was of a one-time nature, was initiated by a decision of the Supervisory Board as an incentive, and lacked signs of systematic recurrence; therefore, in accordance with Procedure No. 100, it is not subject to inclusion in the calculation of average wages.
– Regarding the additional social leave, the court emphasized that only one of the parents is entitled to it, and the burden of proving that the other parent has not exercised this right rests solely on the employee.
– Since the plaintiff did not provide the employer with proper documents confirming that his wife had not used such leave, there were no grounds for the payment of compensation.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the awarding of bonuses is a matter of local regulation, and if the contract clearly defines the structure of payments, the employer is not obligated to include one-time incentives in the calculation of average earnings.
– The court also noted that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the disregard of Supreme Court conclusions are unfounded, as the challenged decisions fully comply with established judicial practice.
– As a result, the court concluded that the settlement upon dismissal was conducted by the employer in full compliance with the requirements of the law and the terms of the employment contract.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim.

Case No. 450/2384/23 indated 04/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the inaction of a notary regarding the refusal to issue a duplicate of a mortgage agreement and a request to compel the notary to perform this notarial act.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the notary, via a letter, clarified to the plaintiff the necessity of the personal presence of the parties or their representatives at the notary office to perform the notarial act, which complies with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Notaries”.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that such a letter does not constitute a refusal to perform a notarial act within the meaning of Article 49 of the Law of Ukraine “On Notaries”, but is merely a clarification of the procedure; therefore, the plaintiff’s rights were not violated at this stage.
* Since the notary did not issue a resolution on refusal but only pointed out the procedural requirements for the request, the claims regarding the declaration of inaction as illegal are premature and groundless.
* The court also noted that the plaintiff has the right to re-apply to the notary while complying with the procedure established by law, which will ensure the realization of their rights.
* Regarding the allocation of legal aid expenses, the court supported the position of the appellate instance on reducing their amount, as they must be commensurate with the complexity of the case and the volume of work performed by the attorney.
* The Supreme Court found no grounds to set aside the decisions of the lower courts, as the courts correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the legality of the courts’ conclusions.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

Case No. 755/11534/24 dated 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of a mortgage agreement as terminated due to the death of the debtor and the lack of consent from the mortgagor to secure the fulfillment of obligations by a new debtor (heir).

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court proceeded from the fact that a mortgage is a derivative obligation that is inextricably linked to the person of the debtor under a loan agreement.
– In accordance with Article 523 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a pledge (mortgage) is terminated in the event of a change of debtor if the mortgagor has not provided consent to secure the fulfillment of the obligation by the new debtor.
– The death of a borrower is a legal fact that leads to the substitution of the debtor in the obligation by their heirs; however, this does not mean the automatic transfer of obligations under the mortgage agreement to the mortgagor.
– The court established that the plaintiff officially informed the creditor of her refusal to secure the obligation for any other debtor, including the heirs of the deceased.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that in the absence of such consent, the mortgage is termiis terminated, as the mortgagor cannot be compelled to be liable for the obligations of new persons without their expression of will.
– The cassator’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected, as the lower courts acted in full compliance with established practice, in particular the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts regarding the termination of the mortgage unchanged.

Case No. 713/4454/24 dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Appealing the refusal of the appellate court to appoint a grandson as a guardian for his incapacitated grandmother, who requires constant external care.

2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appointment of a guardian is the exclusive competence of the court, and the submission of the guardianship authority is only of an advisory nature and is subject to assessment in conjunction with other evidence.
* The court noted that the list of restrictions for appointing a guardian is exhaustive (Art. 64 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), and current legislation does not contain a prohibition on appointing a person of mobilization age or a military serviceman as a guardian.
* The appellate court mistakenly equated the fact of mobilization with an intention to avoid fulfilling military duty without investigating the actual existence of other persons capable of providing guardianship.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court’s doubts regarding the motivation of the guardianship authority’s submission cannot be an independent ground for refusal if these doubts are not supported by evidence of the applicant’s inability to perform the duties of a guardian.
* The court pointed out the need to clarify the “best interests” of the ward, which requires a thorough investigation of the candidate’s ability to provide proper care, rather than just a formal verification of documents.
* **Legal Position:** The court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 305/1557/24, which establishes that the mere fact of military service is not grounds for refusing to appoint a guardian if there are no other persons capable of providing such care.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court in the part regarding the refusal to appoint a guardian and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full establishment of the factual circumstances.

Case No. 463/1474/25 dated 05/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person for committing a criminal offense provided for in Part 5 of Art. 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized abandonment of a military unit or place of service under martial law).

2. During the cassation review, the Supreme Court verified the defense’s arguments regarding the correctness of the application of substantive law norms.and procedural law by the lower courts. The panel of judges analyzed the case file of the criminal proceedings and concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances of the case. The Court established that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 5 of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is well-founded and corresponds to the factual circumstances established during the judicial investigation. The cassation instance did not identify any procedural violations that could serve as grounds for the cancellation or amendment of the judicial decisions. The defense counsel’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of the conviction were deemed insufficient to refute the findings of the lower courts. Thus, the Court confirmed the legality and reasoned nature of the judgment, finding no grounds for its review in favor of the convicted person.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Sokal District Court and the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal, and dismissed the defense counsel’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 175/5459/25 dated 05/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation review of the judgments of the first and appellate instance courts regarding the conviction of an individual for violation of traffic safety rules (Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in order to resolve the issue of the possibility of exemption from criminal liability in connection with reconciliation with the victim.

2. In rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the criminal offense provided for by Part 1 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine belongs to the category of minor crimes, which allows for the application of the institution of exemption from criminal liability. The Supreme Court established that at the time of the cassation hearing, full reconciliation had been reached between the convicted person and the victim, and the damage caused by the crime had been fully compensated. The panel of judges concluded that under such circumstances, further criminal prosecution of the person loses its expediency and does not comply with the principles of humanism. The Court also took into account the absence of objections from the prosecutor regarding the closure of the proceedings on the basis of reconciliation of the parties. Since the procedural conditions for exemption from liability, as provided for by Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, were met, the court deemed it possible to cancel the previous conviction judgments. Additionally, the court resolved the issue of lifting the seizure of property and returning physical evidence to the legal owner, while ensuring that procedural costs for expert examinations were covered at the expense of the convicted person.

3. The Supreme Court canceled the judgments of the lower courts, exempted PERSON_7 from criminal liability on the basis of Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in connection with reconciliation with the victim, and closed the criminal proceedings.

Case No. 916/3185/24 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the recovery of debt underservice agreement for the use of port infrastructure (open storage areas and driveways) and counterclaims for the refund of advance payments.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court pointed out that the court of appeal reached contradictory conclusions by simultaneously acknowledging that the parties had signed a portion of the certificates while denying that the provision of services under them had been proven. The Court emphasized that the appellate instance exhibited “excessive formalism” by refusing to examine documents related to vessel calls solely because they were drawn up in a foreign language without translation, rather than properly evaluating them in conjunction with other evidence. It was also underscored that a court has no right to disregard evidence that may confirm the reality of business transactions, even if such evidence is documented with certain defects. The Supreme Court reiterated that the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof requires the court to weigh the arguments of the parties rather than simply rejecting evidence due to its linguistic form. Consequently, it was recognized that the court of appeal failed to ensure a full and comprehensive examination of the case circumstances, which constitutes a violation of procedural norms.

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the refusal to collect the debt and the allocation of costs, remanding the case for a new trial to the same court of appeal.

Case No. 914/2903/25 dated 05/08/2026

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of closing appellate proceedings upon the appeal of a person who did not participate in the case but claimed that the court decision on the renewal of a land lease agreement violates their rights as a servitude holder.

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the right to appellate review for a person who did not participate in the case arises only when a court decision directly concerns their rights, interests, or obligations, which must be evident and unconditional. The Court emphasized that a decision in a private law dispute applies only between the parties (inter partes) and cannot be asserted against third parties. The court of appeal correctly established that the challenged decision concerned exclusively the lease relations between the plaintiff and the village council, contained no findings regarding the appellant’s rights, and did not terminate their right of servitude. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proving the existence of a violated right lies with the appellant, and the court is not obligated to independently search for evidence or provide legal advice regarding the algorithm of proof. The court of appeal’s refusal to grant a motion to adjourn the hearing was recognized as lawful, as this is a discretionary power of the court, and the untimely collection of evidence is a procedural risk borne by the party itself. Thus, in the absence of evidence of a direct impact of the decision on the appellant’s rights, the closure of the proceedings is lawful.

3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal[…appeal] without satisfaction, and the ruling of the court of appellate instance — without changes.

Case No. 5/79 dated 03/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the challenging of the inaction of a state executive service body, which, over a long period, failed to ensure the enforcement of a 1994 court decision regarding the allocation of a land plot.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the enforcement of a court judgment is an integral component of the right to judicial protection, and its prolonged non-enforcement violates Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The Court emphasized that a state enforcement officer is endowed with a sufficient scope of powers to take active measures, rather than merely engaging in the formal dispatch of notifications or the imposition of fines. The Supreme Court underscored that the enforcement officer’s references to the impossibility of executing the decision without the debtor’s participation are groundless, as the enforcement officer is obliged to take all measures provided by law for the actual restoration of the claimant’s rights. It was also noted that the court should not abstain from assessing the actions of an enforcement officer, even if certain matters fall within the latter’s discretionary powers. The Court rejected the arguments of the executive service regarding the impossibility of enforcement, indicating that the body’s passivity in the context of multi-year non-enforcement of a decision constitutes unlawful inaction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court confirmed that the binding nature of a court decision cannot be made dependent on the will of the debtor, and the enforcement officer must act effectively and in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, recognizing the state enforcement officer’s inaction as unlawful and obliging the officer to perform enforcement actions in accordance with the law.

Case No. 640/20732/22 dated 05/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The case concerns the legality of a refusal to review a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances, by which the plaintiff attempted to refute the fact of their involvement in a criminal offense, which had previously served as the basis for the revocation of their immigration permit and permanent residence permit.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the institution of review based on newly discovered circumstances is not intended for correcting judicial errors or re-evaluating evidence, but serves exclusively for taking into account facts that existed at the time of consideration but were objectively unknown to the parties.
– The Court highlighted that the plaintiff failed to prove the impossibility of obtaining a response from law enforcement agencies regarding their procedural status in the criminal proceedings during the initial consideration of the case.
– The receipt of a new document (a letter from the State Bureau of Investigation) after the court decision was rendered does not constitute a “newly discovered circumstance,” but is merely new evidence, which cannot serve as grounds for reviewing the case under Article 361 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine.
– The Supreme Court distinguished the concept of a “newly discovered circumstance””guilt” and “new evidence,” noting that procedural flaws or incomplete establishment of circumstances by the court of first instance must be corrected through appellate or cassation appeal, rather than through the procedure of review based on newly discovered circumstances.
– The Court also pointed out that a change in legal position or the submission of additional documents does not grant the right to a retrial of the dispute if such data could have been collected earlier.
– Consequently, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate instance that there are no grounds for the review of the decision, as the plaintiff was effectively attempting to initiate a retrial of the case due to disagreement with the previous outcome.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, confirming the impossibility of reviewing the case under the specified circumstances.

Case No. 520/23168/24 dated 05/08/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of an SES (State Emergency Service) employee from service due to the alleged commission of a disciplinary offense consisting of a refusal to register for military service and undergo a Military Medical Commission (VLC) examination.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts did not ensure a full and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case, which is critically important for such disputes. In particular, the courts did not establish whether a specific written order regarding the plaintiff’s implementation of mobilization measures had been issued, the failure to comply with which could serve as grounds for disciplinary liability. The court of cassation also emphasized that dismissal for “incompatibility with further service” is an extreme measure, and the defendant did not justify in what exactly this incompatibility consisted regarding the plaintiff’s actions. Furthermore, the courts did not evaluate the plaintiff’s arguments that violations of mobilization legislation should be regulated by special norms (Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine), rather than the Disciplinary Statute of the SES without a proper order from the management. The Supreme Court emphasized that ignoring key arguments of the parties by the courts is a direct violation of procedural law. Ultimately, the findings of the lower courts were deemed premature, as they did not properly examine the elements of the disciplinary offense.

3. 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. 446/1834/24 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. The subject of the dispute was the establishment of the fact of a woman and a man living as one family without registration of marriage for the purpose of exercising the right to receive a one-time financial aid in connection with the disappearance of a serviceman.

2. The court proceeded from the premise that for the establishment of such a factit is necessary to prove cohabitation, the maintenance of a joint household, the existence of a joint budget, and mutual rights and obligations characteristic of spouses. In this case, the applicant provided a sufficient set of evidence: a certificate of family composition, registration at the same address, testimonies of neighbors and the village head (starosta), joint photographs, and entries in passports regarding joint trips. An important argument was the confirmation that the serviceman had designated the applicant as his next of kin (“common-law wife”) in his personal file. The Court of Appeal correctly clarified the period of cohabitation, limiting it to the date of the dissolution of the man’s last official marriage, since the law does not permit the simultaneous existence of de facto marital relations with another person. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts did not substitute for the state registration of marriage, but merely established a fact that has legal significance for social protection. The cassation arguments of the Ministry of Defense were rejected, as they amounted to an attempt to re-evaluate evidence, which exceeds the powers of the court of cassation instance.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, recognizing them as lawful and well-founded.

Case No. 190/391/22 of 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the plaintiff’s right to a land share (unit) as a former member of a collective agricultural enterprise (CAE), who was included in the list for land allotment (payuvannya) but did not receive the corresponding certificate.

2. In overturning the decisions of the lower courts, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the right to a land share (unit) arises for a person from the moment the CAE receives a state act for the right of collective ownership, provided that this person is included in the list attached to such an act. The Court emphasized that the failure to receive a certificate does not terminate a person’s right, but only complicates its exercise; therefore, applying to the court in such a case is a method of confirming an already existing right. It is important that the court clearly distinguished between lawsuits for the protection of a violated right and lawsuits for the confirmation of an existing right, to which the statute of limitations does not apply. Since the plaintiff was included in the list of members of the “Lozuvatka” CAE, his right to the land share is indisputable. Consequently, the lower courts made a mistake by groundlessly applying the statute of limitations to claims aimed not at protecting a right, but at confirming an existing one. In this decision, the Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated June 22, 2026, in case No. 530/656/24, which definitively solidified the approach regarding the non-application of the statute of limitations to such categories of disputes.

3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts, and rendered a new decision recognizing the plaintiff’s right to a land share (unit).in the amount of 7.63 conventional cadastral hectares.

Case No. 757/64584/17-ts dated 06/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to open proceedings upon an appeal filed by a person who missed the one-year preclusive time limit for appealing a court order of the court of first instance.

In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:

1. The legislature has established an imperative rule (Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine), according to which, upon the expiration of one year from the date the full text of the court decision is drawn up, the court is obliged to refuse to open appellate proceedings, regardless of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline.
2. The only exceptions to this rule are cases where a person was not notified of the case hearing or was not involved in the proceedings, if the decision affects their rights and obligations, or the existence of force majeure circumstances.
3. The court established that LLC “Financial Company ‘Capital Gearing'” was aware of the existence of the judicial proceedings, as it had filed a motion to replace the plaintiff with a legal successor back in 2021, and therefore had the opportunity to monitor the progress of the case.
4. The principle of legal certainty and the finality of a court decision (*res judicata*) requires parties to exercise their procedural rights in good faith and to show reasonable initiative in tracking the status of case proceedings.
5. Since the applicant did not prove the existence of force majeure circumstances and was aware of the dispute, the reference to the violation of procedural rights by the court of first instance does not exempt it from compliance with the time limits for appeal established by law.
6. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access to justice is not absolute and may be restricted, in particular, by the establishment of procedural time limits, which is consistent with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court refusing to open appellate proceedings.

Case No. 552/4720/21 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:

1. The subject of the dispute was the determination of the debtor’s share in property held in common joint ownership with his ex-wife, for the purpose of subsequent foreclosure upon it within the framework of enforcement proceedings.

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the enforcement of a court decision is an integral component of the right to a fair trial, and a private enforcement officer is obliged to take all measures for the compulsory recovery of a debt. The Court noted that the procedure under Article 443 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine is applied to determine shares in property acquired by spouses during marriage, as there is a presumption of equality of the shares of co-owners. The appellant claimed the existence of a dispute over a right, however, the courts of lower instances established that the property was acquired precisely during the period of marriage, and the debtor did not provide properof evidence to refute this fact. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of evidence of debt repayment and in view of the prolonged non-execution of the decision, the determination of the debtor’s share is a lawful means of ensuring the performance of obligations. The court also indicated that at the stage of cassation review, it is impossible to accept new evidence or re-evaluate the circumstances established by the courts. As a result, the Supreme Court confirmed the correct application of the substantive law regarding the regime of joint community property of spouses.

3. The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, and the debtor’s cassation appeal unsatisfied.

Case No. 201/7642/21 dated 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The Dnipro City Council attempted through the court to invalidate a decision of its own executive committee, to vindicate immovable property from another’s unlawful possession, and to cancel the state registration of ownership rights to this property.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
– Firstly, the court established that the plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that the disputed premises, at the time the dispute arose, were actually in communal ownership, as the address of the object was absent from the relevant lists of communal property.
– The court emphasized that the City Council is effectively attempting to correct its own past mistakes (in particular, the actions of its own executive committee) at the expense of a bona fide purchaser, which is inadmissible.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that state interference in a person’s property rights must be proportionate, and the risks of errors made by state bodies should be borne by the bodies themselves, rather than being shifted to third parties.
– The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the principles of “good governance” and “proportionality,” noting that the vindication of property in this case would constitute an excessive burden on the purchaser.
– It was also established that the plaintiff did not prove the illegality of the notary’s actions and did not provide convincing evidence that the property had left communal ownership against the will of the owner.
– Finally, the court indicated that the appellant’s arguments boil down to a disagreement with the assessment of evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance, which does not have the right to re-evaluate the factual circumstances of the case.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the Dnipro City Council unsatisfied, and the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts unchanged.

Case No. 725/10196/25 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff attempted to establish through judicial procedure the fact that he was independently raising and maintaining his minor daughter, which was effectively an attempt to obtainto obtain grounds for deferment from mobilization.

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The court emphasized that military administration bodies (TCC and SP) have the right to appellate review, as the decision of the court of first instance directly affects the fulfillment of military duty by citizens and concerns the interests of the state.
* The Supreme Court stressed that family rights and obligations are inalienable, therefore their termination or limitation is possible only in cases directly provided by law (for example, deprivation of parental rights or the death of one of the parents), and not simply by agreement of the parties.
* The court established that a notarial agreement concluded between the parents regarding the determination of the child’s place of residence does not indicate the mother’s evasion of upbringing, but merely records the current state of affairs, where both parents retain their duties.
* It was concluded that the plaintiff is abusing private-law instruments, attempting to use a civil lawsuit to create prejudicial circumstances in public-law relations (mobilization).
* Since the child’s mother did not abandon the performance of her duties, and there was effectively no dispute regarding the child’s place of residence, the court did not find grounds for granting the claim.
* The court noted that the absence of a violated, unrecognized, or disputed right is an independent ground for dismissing a claim.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the resolution of the appellate court, which denied the claim, remained unchanged.

[Case No. 154/4151/21 of 08/04/2026](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/138787500)
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 plaintiff attempted to judicially compel the Housing and Maintenance Department (KEV) to initiate the procedure for excluding the service apartment he occupied from the category of service housing for subsequent privatization.

2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the status of service housing explicitly prohibits its privatization in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Privatization of the State Housing Fund.”
– The court clearly distinguished between the right to housing and the right to obtain specific premises into ownership, noting that current legislation does not contain an imperative duty for an employer to change the status of service housing at an employee’s request.
– Excluding housing from the category of service housing is a discretionary authority (a right, not a duty) of the owner or an authorized body, rather than an unconditional right of the resident.
– The mere fact of long-term residence in a service apartment or dismissal due to staff reduction does not create automatic grounds for changing the status of the premises.
– The court also took into account that the plaintiff did not prove the fact of a violation of his rights, as the defendant had not taken actions regarding his eviction.
– The court’s position is based on a consistent approach, according to which the lack of necessity to use housingstatus as service housing does not automatically grant the resident a right to privatization.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which had denied the claim.

Case No. 910/13880/25 dated 07/22/2026
The subject of this dispute is the obligation of a supplier to replace a defective storage battery and the recovery of a penalty from said supplier for the breach of deadlines for such replacement.

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial, guided by the necessity to adhere to the principles of adversarial proceedings and the completeness of the judicial review. The Court found that the first-instance and appellate courts had groundlessly denied the defendant’s motion to appoint an expert examination, which was critically important for establishing the causes of the battery failure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts had failed to provide a proper assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the plaintiff’s potential violation of equipment operation rules, as well as the plaintiff’s disregard for requests to conduct an independent inspection. Since the defendant did not have physical access to the battery installed on the locomotive, the courts’ reference to the impossibility of conducting an expert examination due to the defendant’s lack of access to the object of investigation was deemed unfounded. The Court underscored that a decision cannot be based solely on the plaintiff’s evidence if the other party has provided reasoned objections that require verification through specialized knowledge. Thus, the courts failed to ensure a comprehensive clarification of the circumstances of the case, which constitutes a violation of procedural law.

The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Case No. 910/2878/25 dated 08/04/2026
Greetings. As a specialist 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**
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to recover damages in the amount of over UAH 8.2 million caused by the deterioration of the quality indicators of corn and its shortage during storage at the defendant’s grain elevator.

**2. Court Arguments**
The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of the full constituent elements of a civil offense necessary for the recovery of damages, specifically, the unlawful conduct of the warehouseman and a causal link between the defendant’s actions and the damages incurred. A key point was the plaintiff’s non-compliance with the requirements of Article 959 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the deadlines for notifying of damage to goods, as the claims were submitted with a significant delay. The court noted that the sampling of grain carried out by a surveyor company is not identical to the procedure for joint inspection and quality verification provided for by the contract and Regulation No. 136. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of proper storage of the collected samples over a long period until the moment of their laboratory…of the research, which calls into question the reliability of the expert examination results. Regarding the claim for recovery of the value of the grain shortage, the court pointed to the lack of evidence that the plaintiff had submitted a demand for the return of the remaining grain or that the defendant had refused to issue it. Consequently, the courts of lower instances rightfully denied the satisfaction of the claim due to the lack of proof of the circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff.

**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 911/21/21 dated 05/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court regarding the refusal to review a decision in a debt collection case based on newly discovered circumstances due to the applicant’s failure to meet the three-year deadline.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the three-year period established by Part 2 of Article 321 of the Commercial Procedural Code (CPC) of Ukraine for filing an application for a review of a decision based on newly discovered circumstances is a preclusive (extinctive) period.
– This means that upon the expiration of this period, the right to perform such a procedural action terminates automatically, regardless of the validity of the reasons for the delay, including circumstances related to martial law.
– The Court highlighted the importance of the principle of *res judicata* and legal certainty, which require respect for final court decisions and preclude their indefinite review.
– The Supreme Court pointed to a procedural error by the courts of lower instances: instead of refusing to satisfy the application on its merits, the courts should have applied Article 118 of the CPC of Ukraine and left the application without consideration due to the expiration of the deadline.
– The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the practice of the Supreme Court, noting that in the cases cited by the appellant, the issue of missing the specific three-year preclusive period did not arise.
– It was also confirmed that the resolutions of the Plenum of the High Commercial Court of Ukraine are not a source of law enforcement practice that takes priority over the norms of the CPC of Ukraine.
– Ultimately, the Supreme Court corrected the procedural error of the lower courts by changing the wording of the operative part of the decision to “leaving the application without consideration.”

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the courts of lower instances regarding the refusal to satisfy the application, and left the application for review of the decision based on newly discovered circumstances without consideration.

Case No. 902/848/19 dated 05/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the lawfulness of the courts leaving without consideration the claimant’s application to compel the debtor to submit a report on the execution of the court decision due to repeated filing of identical claims.

The Supreme Court upheld the position of the courts of lower instances, which qualifiedactions of LLC “Mur” as an abuse of procedural rights. The Court emphasized that, pursuant to Article 43 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the filing of an application regarding issues that have already been resolved by the court in the absence of new circumstances is inadmissible. The panel of judges noted that procedural rights must be exercised in good faith and not for the purpose of delaying the proceedings or creating obstacles. Since the applicant was, in effect, attempting to re-initiate consideration of an issue for which there already existed a court decision that had entered into legal force, the courts were fully entitled to leave such an application without consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized that it lacks the authority to review the merits of a refusal to establish judicial control, and therefore limited itself to verifying compliance with procedural norms regarding the abuse of rights. In conclusion, the court reached the conclusion that the challenged decisions are lawful, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of its rights were not substantiated.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged.

Case No. 905/775/25 dated 04/08/2026

**1. Subject matter of the dispute:**
The subject matter of the dispute is the recovery of property damage (losses) in the amount of over UAH 2.8 billion from the Russian Federation, caused to a liquidated bank as a result of armed aggression, which led to the depreciation of the bank’s assets in the temporarily occupied territories.

**2. Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the Deposit Guarantee Fund of Individuals has the right to file such a lawsuit on behalf of and in the interests of a bank in liquidation, refuting the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the impossibility of such representation.
* The Court emphasized that the Russian Federation does not enjoy judicial immunity in cases involving compensation for damage caused by armed aggression, as such actions constitute a gross violation of international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine.
* The panel of judges pointed to an incorrect distribution of the burden of proof: the courts of lower instances mistakenly focused on assessing the actions of the Fund itself, whereas in tort obligations, there is a presumption of guilt of the tortfeasor.
* The Court noted that the illegality of the Russian Federation’s actions is a universally known fact, therefore the plaintiff does not need to prove this aspect, and the defendant, in turn, failed to prove the absence of its fault in causing the losses.
* The Supreme Court criticized the courts for refusing the lawsuit solely due to the allegedly unproven amount of damages, without exercising their right to appoint an expert examination on their own initiative to establish the actual extent of the damage.
* The decisions of the courts of lower instances were deemed premature and failing to meet the requirements of completeness and comprehensiveness in examining the circumstances of the case, which made a correct resolution of the dispute impossible.

**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court granted the cassationthe Fund’s appeal, 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 Donetsk Oblast.

Case No. 916/3185/24 of 06/08/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of over UAH 10.6 million under the primary claim of a state-owned enterprise and the refund of a prepayment under the counterclaim of a company.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that during the proceedings in the appellate instance, procedural violations were committed, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. The court of cassation instance pointed to the need for a more thorough examination of the evidence submitted by the parties and for providing them with a proper legal assessment in the context of the contractual obligations between the port and the counterparty. In particular, emphasis was placed on the importance of adhering to the principle of completeness and comprehensive examination of the case materials, which was not ensured by the appellate court. Since the court of cassation does not have the authority to independently establish or consider as proven circumstances that were not established earlier, it is unable to render a new decision on the merits. Consequently, to remedy the identified deficiencies and ensure the parties’ right to a fair trial, the case must be remanded for a new trial to the appellate court. This approach complies with the requirements of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the provision of effective judicial protection.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the resolution of the appellate court in the part regarding the dismissal of the primary claim, and remanded the case for a new trial to the South-Western Commercial Court of Appeal.

Case No. 913/321/23 of 05/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. The subject of the dispute is a prosecutor’s demand to invalidate a contract for the procurement of medical materials and to apply the consequences of invalidity of the transaction due to the fact that the tender winner concealed the fact of being held liable for anti-competitive concerted practices.

2. The court was guided by the principle that for the application of the consequences of invalidity of a transaction under Article 228, Part 3 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (as a transaction contrary to the interests of the state), the mere fact of a violation of the procurement procedure is insufficient. The court emphasized that anti-competitive behavior of a participant does not always automatically imply the existence of an intent by the parties to cause harm to the interests of the state. An important condition is the existence of evidence that the state suffered actual losses or received goods of inadequate quality, which the prosecutor did not prove in this case. The court also took into account that the contract was fully performed, the goods were delivered, and the price was not inflated, therefore, the application of confiscatory sanctions would be a disproportionate interference with the right of ownership. SThe Court emphasized that Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine should be applied only in exceptional cases, for example, in the presence of a guilty verdict of a court or proven significant damages. Since the prosecutor did not provide evidence of the parties’ intent to harm the state, there are no grounds for declaring the contract invalid.

3. The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding the application of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as there is already established practice of the Supreme Court on this issue, and in the remaining part, it left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged, denying the prosecutor’s appeal.

Case No. 120/17490/24 dated 05/08/2026
The subject of this dispute is the issue of the legality of recovering legal costs (court fee and expenses for professional legal assistance) from a military unit after the defendant independently canceled the contested resolution on the ban on entry into Ukraine, which became the basis for closing the proceedings in the case.

When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The Court confirmed that according to Article 140 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, if a plaintiff withdraws a claim as a result of its satisfaction by the defendant after the opening of proceedings, the expenses for legal assistance and the court fee are subject to recovery from the defendant.
2. The Court noted that the voluntary cancellation of the disputed decision by the defendant after the filing of the claim is effectively the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s demands, which creates legal grounds for the reimbursement of expenses.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that when allocating expenses for legal assistance, the court has the right to reduce their amount if they are disproportionate to the complexity of the case, the scope of work performed, and the time spent by the attorney.
4. In this case, the courts of lower instances reasonably reduced the amount of legal assistance expenses to 3,000 UAH, guided by the criteria of reasonableness and the reality of such expenses.
5. The court of cassation instance rejected the complainant’s arguments regarding the incorrect qualification of the grounds for closing the proceedings, since these issues were not the subject of the appellate appeal.
6. The Supreme Court emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate evidence or establish new circumstances that were not the subject of consideration in the lower courts.
7. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the challenged decisions were adopted in compliance with the norms of procedural law, and the complainant’s arguments do not refute the legality of the recovery of costs.

The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the military unit — unsatisfied.

Case No. 947/39753/21 dated 06/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. The subject of the dispute is the heirs’ claim for the termination of a mortgage on real estate in connection with the alleged failure of the creditor to observe the preclusive terms for presenting claims to the heirs of the debtor.

2. The Court was guided bygiven that a mortgage is derivative in nature from the principal obligation; however, the death of a mortgagor or a debtor is not an automatic ground for its termination. The key argument was that the bank timely filed a creditor’s claim with a notary against the heirs, thereby complying with the preclusive time limits established by Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the expiration of the statute of limitations (which occurred in previous cases) does not terminate the credit obligation itself, but merely deprives the creditor of the right to compulsory judicial protection. The court also took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which a mortgage remains in force for an heir who acquires the status of a mortgagor. Since the principal obligation was not terminated, there are no grounds for the termination of the mortgage. Consequently, the appellate court rightfully overturned the decision of the first instance, which was based on an erroneous conclusion regarding the termination of obligations.

3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, by which the heirs’ claim for the termination of the mortgage was dismissed.

Case No. 902/363/24 dated 05/08/2026

1. The subject matter of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of legal costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant during the proceedings in the court of cassation instance.

2. When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of reimbursement of legal costs to the party in whose favor the decision was made, which is one of the key principles of commercial litigation. The Supreme Court confirmed its legal position that even in the case of closure of cassation proceedings, the costs for legal assistance must be borne by the party that filed an unsubstantiated appeal. The court verified the submitted evidence: the agreement for the provision of assistance, the supplementary agreement, the certificate of services rendered, and a detailed description of the work performed. It was established that the attorney did indeed prepare a response to the cassation appeal and participated in court hearings. The court concluded that the claimed amount of UAH 20,000 is commensurate with the complexity of the case and the scope of services provided. Since the other party did not submit a motion to reduce the amount of costs and did not prove their disproportionality, the court recognized them as justified and subject to recovery.

3. The court granted the application of PERSON_1 and ordered PERSON_2 to pay in his favor UAH 20,000 in costs for professional legal assistance.

Case No. 205/10470/23 dated 05/08/2026

1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The Dnipro City Council filed a lawsuit to remove obstacles in the use of a plot of land of communal ownership through the demolition of an unauthorized construction of a real estate object and the cancellcancellation of the state registration of the ownership right thereto.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the state registration of ownership of an unauthorized construction does not change its legal status as a structure built in violation of the law, nor does it automatically legalize it. The Court stressed that the right of ownership to a land plot is primary, and any development thereon without appropriate permits and land rights is unauthorized, which entitles the landowner to demand its vacation. The cassation court pointed out that the lower courts mistakenly focused solely on the formal existence of entries in the registers, ignoring the lack of legal grounds for the initial developer’s ownership right to arise. Furthermore, the Court noted that a previous judicial case regarding the same object should have been considered when assessing the good faith of the property acquirers. The courts failed to properly assess whether subsequent owners were aware of the disputed status of the building, which is critically important for resolving the issue of protecting the property rights of the territorial community. Consequently, the Supreme Court deemed the appellate court’s conclusions premature due to an incomplete investigation of the case circumstances and a violation of procedural law.

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.

Case No. 158/3496/25 dated 08/06/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The applicant petitioned the court to declare his father, a military serviceman who went missing while performing a combat mission in an area of active hostilities, as deceased.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The court was guided by the principle that, according to current legislation and the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, declaring a person deceased under conditions of military operations entails strict time constraints to prevent premature decisions. The court emphasized that the concepts of “military operations” and “martial law” are not identical; therefore, the absence of martial law is not a ground for the automatic application of shortened timeframes. Since the location where the serviceman went missing was officially in an active combat zone at the time of the case hearing, the court found it impossible to establish the fact of death with a sufficient degree of probability. The court noted that special timeframes (two years after the end of hostilities or six months in exceptional cases) are established as a safeguard to avoid erroneous decisions when a person might be in captivity or alive. The applicant’s arguments regarding the existence of digital evidence of death were dismissed, as they do not refute the legal uncertainty inherent in territories where active clashes are ongoing. Thus, the court concluded that the application was premature, as it is impossible at this stage to rule out scenarios other than death.

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court denied the cassation appealdismissed, and the decisions of the lower courts to deny the application were left unchanged.

Case No. 398/4257/25 of 05/08/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of a teacher’s dismissal due to the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract, as well as a claim for reinstatement and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the employment contract was concluded for a definite term by the voluntary consent of the parties, which complies with the requirements of Article 23 of the Labor Code of Ukraine. The Court noted that upon the expiration of such a contract, the employer has the right to terminate the employment relationship pursuant to Clause 2, Part 1 of Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine without additional notification to the employee. An important argument was that the plaintiff did not belong to the category of persons for whom provisions on fixed-term contracts had been declared unconstitutional (old-age pensioners); therefore, the general rules of contractual freedom apply to her. The Court also emphasized that the obligation to inform about vacancies does not arise in the case of a lawful termination of a fixed-term contract, as the intent of the parties to conclude the cooperation was recorded at the time of signing the contract. The plaintiff’s references to Supreme Court practice regarding other cases were rejected because those cases concerned specific legal relations with retired pedagogues, which is not relevant to the present case. Consequently, there are no grounds for reinstatement or the recovery of non-pecuniary damage, as no violations of labor rights by the employer were established.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling, which denied the claim, unchanged.

Case No. 686/3758/21 of 04/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of a debt under a loan agreement and counterclaims for the return of funds that the applicant considered to have been received without legal basis or paid on account of someone else’s debt.

2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that a loan agreement existed between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2, confirmed by a receipt, and that PERSON_2 failed to fulfill the obligation to repay the funds.
* Regarding the counterclaim, the court found that PERSON_3 himself owed PERSON_1 a separate debt in the amount of 820,000 UAH, confirmed by another receipt; therefore, the transfer of funds to her account was the fulfillment of his own obligation, not the debt of PERSON_2.
* The court emphasized that the substitution of a debtor (assignment of debt) requires the consent of the creditor, which was absent in this case, and the evidence does not confirm that the payments by PERSON_3 were made specifically as the performance of PERSON_2’s obligations.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the establishment of the facts of the case and the assessment of evidence are the exclusive prerogativeof the courts of first and appellate instances, and the cassation court has no authority to re-evaluate them.
* The applicant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider the conclusions of the Supreme Court were dismissed, as the factual circumstances in the cases cited by the applicant differed significantly from the circumstances of this dispute.
* As a result, the court concluded that the counterclaim is unfounded, as the applicant failed to prove the existence of legal grounds for the recovery of funds from the defendants.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

Case No. 560/5986/25 dated 08/05/2026
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:** Challenging the decision of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to return for revision the documents of the plaintiff, who was applying for a one-time monetary allowance in connection with the death of a serviceman with whom she lived as a single family without marriage registration.

2. **Court arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the right to receive a one-time monetary allowance arises exclusively at the moment of the serviceman’s death; therefore, the legislation in force precisely on the date of this event applies to the disputed legal relations.
– At the time of the serviceman’s death, the law did not provide for such a category of recipients as “persons living as a single family without marriage registration,” therefore the expanded interpretation of this concept by the lower courts was erroneous.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that amendments to legislation, which subsequently included common-law wives/husbands in the list of recipients, do not have retroactive effect in time and cannot extend to cases that occurred earlier.
– The court noted that a court decision establishing the fact of cohabitation as a single family is relevant for civil relations but does not automatically create a right to receive a special social payment if the person does not meet the criteria defined by special law at the time of the breadwinner’s death.
– It was emphasized that adherence to the principle of legal certainty and the stability of the state’s budgetary obligations requires strict compliance with the composition of recipients defined by law on the date the right arises.
– Consequently, the actions of the Ministry of Defense regarding the return of documents for revision to confirm the status of a dependent (which is a legal ground for payment) were recognized as lawful.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the first and appellate instance courts and rendered a new decision, which completely denied the satisfaction of the claims of PERSON_1.

Case No. 372/168/22 dated 08/05/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of cassation review is the lawfulness of the refusal of appof the appellate court regarding the refusal to open proceedings upon the defendant’s appeal, filed after the expiration of the one-year preclusive time limit from the date of the court of first instance’s decision in a business reputation protection case.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Court emphasized the imperative nature of Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which prohibits the opening of appellate proceedings if an appeal is filed after the expiration of one year from the date the full text of the decision is drawn up, regardless of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline.
* Exceptions to this rule apply only in cases where the person was not notified of the hearing or the delay occurred due to force majeure circumstances.
* The Supreme Court established that the defendant was duly notified of the proceedings in the court of first instance, as the court had taken all measures provided by law to summon the party, including sending subpoenas to known addresses and publishing notices on the official website of the judiciary.
* The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding improper notification, noting that the defendant had an independent duty to monitor the status of the proceedings, and their claim of not receiving subpoenas does not refute the fact that the court fulfilled its obligation regarding proper summoning.
* The panel of judges emphasized that the right to access justice is not absolute and cannot be used for the abuse of procedural rights for the purpose of reviewing final decisions beyond the time limits established by law.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the procedural norms, as the case file contained no evidence of force majeure that would allow for a departure from the one-year limitation on filing appeals.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to open appellate proceedings.

**Case No. 908/1552/24(908/3669/25) dated 05/08/2026**
The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is a third party’s motion for an additional decision regarding the allocation of professional legal aid expenses incurred during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.

2. The Court was guided by the fact that, according to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, expenses for legal aid are subject to allocation between the parties based on the results of the case consideration, regardless of whether they have been actually paid or are yet to be paid. The Supreme Court confirmed that the evidence of services rendered (Report, Act, invoice) was dated after the adoption of the resolution on the merits of the dispute; therefore, submitting them along with the motion for the allocation of expenses is well-founded and does not violate procedural time limits. The Court verified the reality of the services provided, their scope (10 hours of work), and their compliance with the criteria of reasonableness, commensurability, and proportionality to the complexity of the case. At the same time, the Court rejected the arguments of JSC “Bank Alliance” regarding the lack of connection between the dispute and the third party’s commercial activity, since the representation