Case No. 761/18916/23 dated 08/05/2026
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 legality of the actions taken by the Kyiv City Council regarding the restitution of a land plot and the demolition of an unauthorized garage, as well as the issue of compliance with procedural guarantees during the appellate court proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court focused exclusively on procedural violations committed by the appellate court during the consideration of the case. The Court established that the defendant was not duly notified of the date, time, and place of the court hearing, as subpoenas were sent to addresses that were not confirmed as her official place of residence. The principle of equality of arms and the right to a fair trial require that a person be informed of the progress of the proceedings, and the court must verify the service of documents. The appellate court ignored the lack of evidence of proper notification, which is a fundamental violation of procedural norms. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to be heard is a key element of the adversarial process, without which a decision cannot be considered just. Since the appellate court considered the case in the absence of a properly notified party, this became an unconditional ground for overturning its ruling. At the same time, the Supreme Court did not assess the arguments regarding the application of new amendments to the Civil Code, as the procedural violation made it impossible to consider the case on its merits.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 127/38760/24 dated 08/05/2026
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:** Recovery of material and moral damages caused as a result of a road traffic accident from the liable party and the insurance company.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to stay proceedings for military personnel is an important guarantee that ensures their right to a fair trial and an adversarial process. The Court noted that the appellate instance demonstrated “excessive formalism” by refusing to stay the proceedings due to an allegedly “outdated” certificate of military service. The Supreme Court stressed that the court’s obligation to stay proceedings is mandatory, not discretionary, if a person is objectively deprived of the opportunity to participate in the process due to the performance of combat missions. It was also indicated that the appellate court should have requested up-to-date evidence or granted a reasonable time for its submission, instead of hastily rendering a decision. It is important,that the new certificate of service was received by the court just two days after the ruling was issued, which confirmed the validity of the defendant’s motion. Thus, the violation of the serviceman’s procedural rights became the key factor in overturning the appellate decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**:** In this decision, the Supreme Court refers to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated November 12, 2025, in case No. 754/947/22, which establishes mandatory rules regarding the application of Clause 2 of Part 1 of Article 251 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (stay of proceedings in connection with military service) and emphasizes the inadmissibility of excessive formalism in such matters.
Case No. 550/668/24 dated 08/20/2026
The subject of this dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict regarding the convicted person, PERSON_6, who was accused of committing criminal offenses provided for in Part 2 of Article 125, Part 2 of Article 389, and Part 1 of Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, having reviewed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court. The Court established that during the appellate review, the procedural guarantees ensuring the right to a fair trial and proper review of the case were not observed. Since the operative part of the ruling does not contain a detailed statement of the motives, the Court pointed out the necessity of a new appellate review of the case to rectify the identified shortcomings. An important aspect was the decision on the immediate release of the accused from custody, which indicates critical gaps in the legal justification for holding the person in custody, which were permitted by the lower courts. The Supreme Court acted within the scope of its powers to verify the correct application of legal norms, without establishing the factual circumstances of the case on its merits, but merely indicating the need to correct procedural errors. Thus, the decision is aimed at restoring procedural order and ensuring the observance of the convicted person’s rights during further proceedings.
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the verdict of the Poltava Appellate Court, ordered a new trial in the appellate court, and ordered the immediate release of PERSON_6 from custody.
Case No. 766/9946/21 dated 08/19/2026
The subject of this dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to return the defense attorney’s appellate complaint filed in the interests of the convicted person.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the procedural order of complaiThe execution of court decisions must strictly comply with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Appellate Court, in returning the complaint, acted within the scope of its authority, as the defense attorney failed to rectify the deficiencies that served as the grounds for staying the proceedings on the complaint, or submitted it in violation of the requirements established by law. The Supreme Court examined the case materials and concluded that the appellate instance correctly applied the norms of procedural law. The defense attorney’s arguments regarding the groundlessness of returning the complaint were not confirmed during the cassation review. The Court emphasized that the right to appellate appeal is not absolute and must be exercised exclusively in the manner prescribed by law. Consequently, no grounds were established for setting aside the ruling of the appellate court and resuming proceedings on the defense attorney’s complaint.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, and the cassation appeal of the defense attorney was dismissed.
Case No. 904/1871/24 of 18/08/2026
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**
The subject of the dispute is the legality of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee, by which the State Enterprise “Kryvbaspromvodopostachannya” was recognized as a monopolist and fined for abusing its dominant position by including excessive electricity costs in its tariffs.
**2. Court Arguments**
* The court established that the enterprise held a monopoly position in the industrial water supply market, as competitors were absent due to technological and administrative barriers.
* Having examined the cost calculations, the court confirmed that the enterprise artificially inflated the cost of services by including electricity expenses that significantly exceeded established industry standards.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the violation of the time limits for the case consideration by the AMC, noting that at the time the proceedings were initiated, the current legislation did not establish deadline limits for such cases, and the statute of limitations for bringing the party to liability was suspended.
* The court critically evaluated the expert report submitted by the plaintiff, as the expert did not examine key documents upon which the AMC decision was based and attempted to provide a legal assessment of the committee’s actions, which exceeds the scope of an expert’s competence.
* Regarding the refusal to involve the regional state administration as a third party, the court indicated that the decision in the case does not create any direct rights or obligations for this body; therefore, there were no grounds for its involvement.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence that had already been comprehensively examined by the courts of first and appellate instances, and it found no grounds to set aside the decisions due to the appellant’s formal procedural arguments.**Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had confirmed the lawfulness of the AMCU (Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine) sanctions.
Case No. 916/655/24 dated 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt from a state institution under a service agreement for the adjustment of design documentation, which the customer refused to pay, citing the seizure of documents within the framework of criminal proceedings.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff had duly performed contractual obligations, which is confirmed by acceptance certificates and forensic examination reports confirming the compliance of the documentation with building codes.
– The defendant’s argument regarding the impossibility of signing the certificates due to criminal proceedings was deemed untenable, as the fact of investigative actions itself does not exempt a party from fulfilling civil law obligations.
– The court emphasized that the customer did not provide a reasoned refusal to sign the certificates specifying concrete defects in the work, as required by the terms of the agreement.
– Regarding the non-fulfillment of a specific point of the terms of reference (environmental impact assessment), the court established that this occurred due to the inaction of the customer themselves, who failed to provide the necessary initial data.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant’s reference to the case law of the Supreme Court in other cases is inappropriate, as the legal relations in those cases are not similar, and the appellant’s arguments effectively amount to an attempt to reassess evidence, which is prohibited in cassation proceedings.
– The court also noted that an expert report does not have predetermined legal force, but in conjunction with other evidence, it confirmed the fact of work performance; therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court closed the cassation proceedings regarding references to the failure to take into account Supreme Court case law (due to the dissimilarity of legal relations) and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, dismissing the cassation appeal.
Case No. 904/6166/25 dated 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a brief summary of the case for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a repayable financial assistance agreement, penalty for delay, and funds received in excess of the agreement amount as unjust enrichment.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the defendant did not return the assistance amount within the period stipulated by the agreement, which is a direct breach of obligations.
* Regarding the additionally received funds (in excess of the agreement amount), the court reached [the conclusion]concluded that they are subject to restitution pursuant to Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as the defendant failed to prove the existence of a legal basis for their retention.
* The defendant attempted to substantiate the absence of debt by way of set-off of counterclaims, yet failed to provide evidence of the termination of the other contract upon which this claim was based.
* The court emphasized that pursuant to Article 601 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the incontestability and substantiation of claims are required for a set-off, which was not established in this case.
* The Supreme Court noted that the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to consider previous practice are groundless, as the circumstances in the cases cited are not similar to the circumstances of the present case.
* The court of cassation instance emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the lower courts provided a proper assessment of all circumstances of the case.
* As a result, the court recognized the decisions of the lower instances as lawful and well-founded, as the defendant failed to prove the fact of the termination of the obligation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defendant — dismissed.
Case No. 753/5267/22 dated 17/08/2026
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**
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the right to use residential premises by a former serviceman and the obligation of the balance holder (SE MOU “Ukrviyskbud”) to restore the supply of utility services (electricity and water) to these premises.
**2. Arguments of the court**
The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff’s long-term residence in the disputed premises (over 14 years) and the absence of other housing for him grant these premises the status of “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The court established that the plaintiff did not receive the apartment promised by the state due to the enterprise’s debt obligations; therefore, the disputed premises effectively became a substitute for the housing due to him. The defendant’s argument regarding the “non-residential” status of the premises was rejected, as it is isolated, suitable for habitation, and complies with sanitary and technical standards. The court emphasized that the balance holder has no legal grounds for the forced disconnection of utility services, especially in the absence of indebtedness on the part of the consumer. It was also taken into account that the plaintiff is registered on the housing waiting list and is not subject to eviction without the provision of other permanent housing. Ultimately, the court concluded that the enterprise’s actions regarding the disconnection of services constitute a disproportionate interference with a person’s right to respect for their home.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of SE MOU “Ukrviyskbud” and upheld the appellate court’s resolution on the recognition of the right to use the residential…with housing and restoration of utility services — unchanged.
Case No. 916/2308/24 dated 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff (JSC “Ukrnaftnafta”) filed a lawsuit requesting to invalidate a petroleum product supply contract concluded with the defendant (PJSC “Synthesis Oil”) due to the plaintiff’s representative exceeding their authority and the fictitious nature of the transaction.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the plaintiff’s representative signed a contract for an amount that significantly exceeded the limits set by the company’s Charter for such transactions.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that although there is a presumption of the validity of a director’s actions, it is not absolute if the counterparty acted in bad faith or unreasonably.
– The court noted that the defendant, as a professional market participant, was obliged to exercise reasonable diligence when concluding a contract for a large sum and to verify the signatory’s authority, in particular by analyzing the Charter, which was referenced in the power of attorney.
– Since the defendant did not verify the existence of corporate approvals (decisions of the Management Board or Supervisory Board), its conduct was deemed to be in bad faith.
– The court, in its decision, clearly relied on the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 12/03/2025 in case No. 914/768/22, which details the criteria for the good faith of a counterparty when assessing the authority of a legal entity’s representative.
– The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the prejudicial nature of other court decisions, as the issue of the signatory’s authority to conclude this specific contract was not examined on its merits in those cases.
– The absence of a claim for restitution (returning the parties to their initial state) does not render the lawsuit ineffective, as the plaintiff has the right to protect its interests by having the transaction declared invalid.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which satisfied the claim and declared the contract invalid.
Case No. 903/347/25 dated 08/19/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the legality of increasing the price of electricity under a public procurement contract and the recovery of overpaid funds, initiated by the Volyn Customs against the supplier, LLC “Volynenergozbut.”
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the territorial bodies of the State Customs Service, even without the status of a legal entity, are government authorities and have the right to judicial protection of their interests.
– The court noted that the lack of legal entity statusshould not be equated with a lack of procedural legal personality, as the customs authority acted as the customer under the contract and possesses the relevant powers in accordance with its Regulations.
– The Court of Appeal erred by closing the proceedings in the case, as a dispute regarding the performance of a commercial contract is subject to review specifically in a commercial court.
– The Supreme Court emphasized the inadmissibility of the Court of Appeal exceeding the scope of the appellate complaint if this leads to the worsening of the appellant’s position (the principle of *non reformatio in peius*).
– The Court indicated that the issue of whether the plaintiff is a proper party concerns the merits of the claim rather than jurisdiction; therefore, closing the proceedings under such circumstances was unfounded.
– It was also taken into account that at the time the contested ruling was adopted by the Court of Appeal, no other parallel proceedings regarding the same subject matter of the dispute existed; therefore, arguments regarding the “duplication” of cases were untenable.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeal, and remanded the case to the same court for further proceedings on the merits.
Case No. 592/13975/25 dated 08/19/2026
Case No. 910/1396/26 dated 08/18/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 910/1396/26:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the return by the court of first instance of a counterclaim due to the non-payment of the court fee within the time limit established by law.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the procedural time limit for remedying defects in a statement of claim, established by Article 174 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, is imperative and cannot be extended by the court on its own initiative. The Court emphasized that the legality of a decision is assessed exclusively at the moment of its adoption, and since, at the time of issuing the ruling on the return of the claim, the court had no information regarding the payment of the fee or a motion to extend the time limit, the court’s actions were lawful. The Supreme Court emphasized that the submission of documents remedying the defects after the ruling on the return of the claim has been issued does not negate the fact that the time limit was missed. It was also noted that the interconnectedness of the initial claim and the counterclaim does not exempt the applicant from the obligation to comply with procedural requirements. The Court indicated that the return of a claim does not constitute excessive formalism, as the applicant had sufficient time to fulfill the court’s requirements or to file a motion for the deferral of the fee payment. Ultimately, the Court noted that the applicant is not deprived of the right to file the claim again, provided they prove the validity of the reasons for missing the time limit.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the Court of Appeal.
Case No. 914/2177/24 dated 08/20/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your materials:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim for the recovery from a supplier, in favor of a local council, of the amount of Value Added Tax (VAT) which the prosecutor considers to have been groundlessly included in the price of a contract for the procurement of anti-drone systems that should have been exempt from taxation.
**2. Arguments of the Court**
* In this case, the Supreme Court took into account the legal position set forth by the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in its resolution dated 07/17/2026 (case No. 910/6530/24), which effectively changes the approach to resolving such disputes.
* The key argument of the Court was that VAT is an indirect tax included in the price of goods, but its payment to the budget is a public-law obligation of the seller, rather than a private-law agreement between the parties.
* The Court emphasized that if the supplier actually transferred the funds (VAT) received from the buyer to the State Budget of Ukraine, then the state did not suffer damages, and therefore, there are no grounds for the recovery of these funds as unjustly acquired under Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* The Supreme Court established that the courts of lower instances did not investigate a critically important fact: whether the defendant actually paid the received VAT to the budget, which is decisive for establishing a violation of the state’s interests.
* Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not clarify this issue and did not assess the evidence of tax payment, their decisions were deemed premature and unfounded.
* The Court emphasized that the absence of a violated right or interest of the plaintiff is an independent ground for dismissing a claim, therefore, verification of the fact of tax payment is mandatory.
* In this regard, the Supreme Court concluded that it is necessary to set aside the previous court decisions and remit the case for a new trial to fully establish the circumstances.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Commercial Court of Lviv Region and the resolution of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal, remitting the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 641/4348/25 dated 08/20/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the verdicts of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the conviction of a person under Part 4 of Article 409 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of military service under martial law).
2. The Supreme Court, having analyzed the case materials, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law that prevented the courts from rendering a lawful and substantiated decision. The court of cassation instance established that during the consideration of the case in the lower instances, procedural guarantees were not observed, beforeof the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which directly affected the correctness of the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the sentencing. Since the identified deficiencies cannot be remedied by the court of cassation on its own, a decision was made regarding the necessity of a retrial. Such an approach ensures compliance with the right to a fair trial and proper defense, as a verdict cannot be based on assumptions or procedurally defective evidence. The court also took into account the need to verify all circumstances of the case that were ignored by the appellate court, which is a mandatory condition for rendering a just judgment.
3. The court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the judgments of the lower courts, and ordered a new trial in the court of first instance, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 554/731/25 dated 08/17/2026
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 matter of the dispute**
The subject matter of the dispute is a claim by a local self-government body to remove a person from the right of inheritance due to their intentional murder of another heir and to recognize a share of the inheritance as escheat.
**2. Court’s arguments**
The court proceeded from the premise that the right to inheritance by law arises for an heir from the moment the inheritance opens, and in this case, the respondent and his brother (the victim) accepted the inheritance after their mother’s death, becoming owners of a 1/4 share of the apartment each. The Supreme Court emphasized that the provision of Article 1224 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which deprives persons who have committed a crime against the decedent or another heir of the right to inheritance, cannot be interpreted broadly. The court noted that the intentional murder of a brother does not affect the respondent’s already acquired right to the inheritance after his mother’s death, since this right arose earlier and independently of the fact of committing a crime against the brother. The plaintiff’s argument that the murder was aimed at increasing the estate was rejected by the court as not based on the literal meaning of the law. The court also indicated that the respondent has no right to inherit only from his brother; therefore, it was specifically that share of the property that was lawfully recognized as escheat. Thus, the lower courts correctly applied the provisions of the law, and the cassation appeal contained no grounds for overturning the decisions.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the respondent’s right to a 1/4 share of the inheritance after his mother.
Case No. 204/4670/24 dated 08/12/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the termination of appellate proproceedings upon the complaint of a person who did not participate in the case but believes that the court decision on debt recovery violates their property rights.
2. The Supreme Court was guided by the principle that the right to appellate review for persons who did not participate in the case arises only when a court decision directly determines issues regarding their rights, freedoms, interests, or obligations. The Court emphasized that such a legal connection must be evident, unconditional, and confirmed by the court’s conclusions in the reasoning or operative part of the decision. In this case, the applicant (a cooperative) failed to prove that the recovery of debt from the defendant under a loan agreement automatically deprives it of the right of ownership to real estate. The Court noted that the existence of another dispute between the applicant and the defendant regarding property ownership does not make the applicant a party to the legal relations under the loan agreement. The lack of evidence that the defendant has no other property to repay the debt also indicates the absence of a direct impact of the decision on the cooperative’s rights. Thus, the appellate court lawfully closed the proceedings, as the applicant failed to provide evidence of the violation of its rights by the challenged decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of the appellate proceedings.
Case No. 915/243/22 dated 08/18/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the refusal to reopen enforcement proceedings that had previously been closed pursuant to Clause 11 of Part 1 of Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.”
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the enforcement proceedings were lawfully closed due to the debtor’s failure to execute a decision that cannot be executed without their participation, after the enforcement officer had taken all measures provided by law (fines, notification of a criminal offense).
– The Supreme Court emphasized that according to paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 40 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings,” closed enforcement proceedings cannot be initiated again, except in cases expressly provided for by law.
– The only mechanism for restoring the creditor’s rights in such a situation is to challenge the resolution on the closure of enforcement proceedings in court; however, the creditor did not do so, and the resolution remains in force.
– The Court referred to the established practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirms that the law does not provide for the possibility of re-submitting an enforcement document for execution if the proceedings were closed on the specified grounds and were not overturned by the court.
– At the same time, the court noted that the creditor is not deprived of the right to initiate a change in the mode and procedure for the execution of a court decision (for example, to collectionof the monetary equivalent of the property value), if the actual performance in kind has become impossible.
– Thus, the actions of the state executive officer regarding the return of the writ of execution without acceptance for execution were recognized as lawful, as the officer acted within the scope of their powers and in accordance with the requirements of current legislation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts without changes.
Case No. 167/441/25 dated 08/19/2026
The subject of the dispute in this case is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s verdict, which revoked the exemption of the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation for committing crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs.
The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate instance, which deemed it impossible to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (exemption from serving a sentence with probation) to a person who committed a series of drug distribution episodes. The Court emphasized that although the existence of positive character references and sincere remorse allowed for the application of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (imposition of a more lenient punishment than provided by law), these circumstances do not automatically guarantee an exemption from actual service of the sentence. The appellate court reasonably took into account the heightened public danger of drug-related crimes and the number of episodes of the convicted person’s criminal activity. The Supreme Court also clarified that signing a military service contract is not, in itself, an unconditional ground for applying Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. For such cases, the law provides a separate mechanism — conditional early release for military service under Article 81-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Thus, the defense attorney’s cassation appeal was found to be groundless, as the imposed punishment meets the requirements of justice and individualization.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict without changes and dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 608/1088/23 dated 08/19/2026
Hello. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a person for evasion of mobilization conscription (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) due to the refusal to receive a summons based on religious convictions.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court confirmed that the current legislation of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of replacing military service by conscription during mobilization with alternative (non-military) service, unlike regular conscription (fixed-term) service.
– Referring to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated October 27, 2025, the court noted that the right to freedom of religion
