Case No. 761/16888/23 dated 08/19/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (as the legal successor of the reorganized Academy) of wage arrears, compensation for unused leave, average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism, and non-pecuniary damage arising from unlawful dismissal and delay in executing the court decision on reinstatement.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court established that the University is the full legal successor of the National Academy of Public Administration and, therefore, bears responsibility for unfulfilled labor obligations to the plaintiff.
– A key factor was that the employer did not perform a full settlement with the employee on the day of dismissal, which directly violates the requirements of Article 47 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
– The court emphasized that the amounts subject to recovery under a court decision (wages, average earnings) must be calculated without tax deductions; however, upon their actual payment, the employer is obliged to withhold taxes and levies as a tax agent.
– Regarding non-pecuniary damage, the court recognized the existence of the elements of a civil offense, as the prolonged non-execution of the reinstatement decision and non-payment of wages caused the plaintiff mental suffering.
– The court rejected the University’s arguments that the payments should have been made by the Ministry of Education and Science, since the University, as the legal successor, is obliged to ensure the observance of labor rights of the employees of the reorganized institution.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that compensation for the loss of a portion of income due to violation of payment terms has a compensatory nature and does not depend on whether these amounts were previously accrued.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the University’s cassation appeal, amending the reasoning and operative parts of the appellate court’s resolution regarding the procedure for paying the awarded amounts (with mandatory withholding of taxes and levies), and upheld the decision in all other respects.
Case No. 488/2135/19 dated 08/19/2026
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 prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the state with a demand to cancel the city council’s decision on transferring a land plot into private ownership, to invalidate the state deed of ownership, and to vindicate this plot from illegal possession in favor of the territorial community.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The court of cassation indicated that the courts of lower instances did not provide a proper assessment of the evidence regarding the bad faith of the acquirer, in particular the facts of their ignoring the court ruling prohibiting construction.which is confirmed by a verdict in a criminal case.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the acquirer’s good faith must be resolved exclusively after a thorough examination of all circumstances of the case, which the courts of first and appellate instances failed to do.
– The Court noted that in resolving the dispute, it is necessary to consider amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine (regarding the strengthening of protection of the rights of a bona fide acquirer), which require the court to verify whether actions aimed at alienating the property were committed and whether the acquirer is indeed in good faith.
– The Court of Cassation emphasized that the courts did not analyze the evidence provided by the prosecutor (urban planning documentation, cadastral map data, media publications) in the context of whether the acquirer could have known about the illegality of the plot’s departure from the community’s ownership.
– The Court also pointed out that since the decision regarding the recovery of property was overturned, the additional decisions on the recovery of legal costs automatically lose their force, as they are an integral part of the main decision.
– **** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its own previous conclusion set forth in the additional resolution of April 22, 2019, in case No. 756/2157/15-ts, regarding the procedure for the distribution of court costs in the event of remanding a case for a new trial.
– The Court of Cassation stated that the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the issue of whether the acquirer is in good faith, which is key to applying the new legislative provisions on compensation for the value of property.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the court decisions in the part concerning the refusal to recover the land plot and the distribution of court costs, and also overturned the additional decisions of the court of first instance, remanding the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 754/1841/25 dated 08/19/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the release of the convicted person from serving a sentence with probation and the non-imposition of a mandatory additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the circulation of narcotic drugs.
2. The Supreme Court indicated that the appellate court did not provide proper grounds for releasing the person from actual service of the sentence, limiting itself only to a formal list of mitigating circumstances. The Court critically evaluated the appellate court’s unsubstantiated assertions regarding the alleged absence of harm to society and the “compelled” nature of the crimes committed due to pain. A key argument was the appellate court’s disregard for the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court regarding the mandatory imposition of an additional penalty. **** The Court emphasized that an additional penalty in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities must be imposed regardless of whether the person was officially engaged in such activity at the time of the crime, regarthereby departing from the outdated clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine from 2003. The Court of Appeal did not verify the prosecutor’s arguments regarding the significant disproportion between the gravity of the crimes and the leniency of the imposed sentence. As a result, the decision of the appellate instance was deemed unreasoned and non-compliant with the requirements of the criminal procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Court of Appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
Case No. 727/4796/24 dated 20/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of a sale and purchase agreement for non-residential premises, concluded between a service cooperative and an individual, due to the violation of the plaintiff’s rights as the construction developer.
2. **Main arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court departed from its own previous position, set forth in a number of cases, where the invalidation of a transaction (rescissory action) was considered an appropriate method of protecting the rights of a construction developer.
– The Court emphasized that the construction developer is the primary holder of property rights, however, the method of protection must correspond to the legal nature of the relationship.
– Invalidation of a chain of contracts is an ineffective method of protection, as it does not resolve the issue of property possession and may unjustifiably violate the rights of bona fide purchasers.
– The proper and effective method of protection in such cases is a vindicatory action (repossession of property from someone else’s illegal possession) together with the recognition of property rights.
– Since the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protection (invalidation of the contract instead of repossession of property), this is an independent ground for dismissing the claim.
– The Court also took into account that the plaintiff had already achieved their goal in other judicial proceedings (renewal of the land lease and receipt of the facility readiness certificate), which confirms the lack of need for invalidating the disputed contract.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the resolution of the Court of Appeal and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim, while amending its reasoning part.
Case No. 398/4998/24 dated 12/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Establishing the fact of a man and woman living together as a family without marriage registration for the purpose of receiving a one-time monetary assistance in connection with the death of a serviceman.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
* The court was guided by the provisions of Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine, which defines a family as persons who live together, are connected by a common household, and have mutual rights and obligations.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislation does not contain an exhaustive list of evidence to confirm such a fact.relationships, therefore the court evaluates them in their entirety in each specific case.
* In this case, the courts of first and appellate instances provided a proper assessment of the evidence: joint children, the fact of joint upbringing, maintenance of a joint household, medical declarations, and even the fact of a church wedding.
* The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Ministry of Defense regarding the failure to take into account previous legal positions, noting that the circumstances in the cases cited by the appellant differed significantly from the circumstances of this case.
* The Court emphasized that the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are not universal templates but must be applied taking into account the specifics of each particular situation.
* It was also confirmed that the establishment of this fact has real legal significance for the applicant for the purpose of exercising her right to social protection.
* Ultimately, the cassation court pointed out that it does not have the authority to reassess evidence, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the lower courts, which have already established all necessary facts.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances.
Case No. 935/2758/23 dated 08/20/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 935/2758/23:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Determination of an additional period for the acceptance of an inheritance under the procedure of inheritance transmission following the death of the plaintiff’s father.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to inheritance transmission (Art. 1276 of the Civil Code of Ukraine) arises only when an heir dies within the six-month period established for the acceptance of an inheritance, without having managed to accept it. In this case, the plaintiff’s father died two years after the opening of the inheritance, therefore the provisions on inheritance transmission do not apply to him. The Court noted that in order to grant an additional period under Art. 1272 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, it is necessary to prove the existence of objective and insurmountable obstacles precisely during the first six months after the death of the testator. Since the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the existence of such obstacles during the specified period, there are no grounds for satisfying the claim. The Supreme Court also emphasized that inheritance transmission provides for the transfer of the right to accept an inheritance, and not the transfer of the right to apply to a court with a claim to determine an additional period. Thus, the appellate court incorrectly applied the provisions of the law, which led to the cancellation of its decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to deny the satisfaction of the claim, amending only its reasoning part.
Case No. 450/4166/18 dated 08/24/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the indictment of three persons for committing grave and especially grave criminal offenses, including intentional murder committed out of hooligan motivesby prior conspiracy of a group of persons.
2. The Supreme Court, while reviewing the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the appellate court failed to ensure a proper examination of all circumstances of the case, which led to premature conclusions regarding the qualification of the defendants’ actions and the reasonableness of their sentencing. In particular, deficiencies were identified in the verification of evidence, which is of decisive importance for establishing the guilt or innocence of the persons in committing the incriminated crimes. The court also drew attention to the necessity of strict compliance with procedural guarantees provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine when assessing the case materials. Considering the gravity of the accusations, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to apply preventive measures in the form of detention in custody to ensure the proper conduct of the defendants during the new trial. Thus, the decision of the appellate instance was deemed to be non-compliant with the requirements of legality and reasonableness.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, while selecting the preventive measure of detention in custody for the defendants.
Case No. 643/13334/25 dated 08/12/2026
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the refusal of the courts of first and appellate instances to open proceedings based on an application to establish the fact of sole upbringing and maintenance of a child under the procedure of separate proceedings.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the fact of sole upbringing of a child cannot take place under the procedure of separate proceedings, as it inevitably affects the rights and obligations of the other parent. Parental responsibilities are inalienable, and their non-fulfillment by one of the parents essentially creates a dispute over rights, which must be resolved exclusively through litigation (adversarial proceedings). The court stressed that the institution of separate proceedings cannot be used to create “convenient” prejudicial facts that would automatically grant a right to deferment from mobilization. Resolving such issues requires the examination of evidence in an adversarial process, where the interests of the child are paramount. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that current legislation already provides mechanisms for the termination of parental rights or obligations (for example, through deprivation of parental rights), which must be implemented in a litigation procedure. Thus, the refusal to open proceedings is lawful, as the existence of a dispute over rights precludes the possibility of applying the simplified procedure for establishing legal facts.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal withoutdismissed, and the ruling of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court were upheld without changes.
Case No. 294/1784/24 dated 20/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute concerns the legality of releasing a person from the duties of a guardian of an incapacitated brother and appointing a new guardian under conditions where the potential candidate for guardianship is a serviceman who has deserted his place of service.
2. In rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided primarily by procedural norms regarding the competent composition of the court. The Court emphasized that cases involving the appointment, replacement, or release from guardianship duties, according to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, must be considered exclusively by a collegiate composition of the court, namely: one judge and two jurors. Since the court of first instance considered this case as a sole judge, this constitutes an unconditional ground for overturning the decision due to the case being heard by an incompetent composition of the court. The appellate court, in turn, did not rectify this significant procedural violation, leaving the decision unchanged. The Supreme Court also referred to the legal position set forth in the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated September 15, 2025, in case No. 727/5306/24, which confirms the mandatory collegiate review of such categories of cases. Given these circumstances, the cassation instance did not proceed to evaluate the parties’ arguments regarding the appropriateness of appointing the guardian, as the procedural violations made a lawful consideration of the case on its merits impossible. **** In this decision, the Court directly refers to the position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated September 15, 2025, which establishes the mandatory collegiate review of guardianship cases, which is definitive for judicial practice.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal and remanded the case for new proceedings to the appellate court.
Case No. 766/9946/21 dated 19/08/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the appellate court’s refusal to reinstate the deadline for filing an appeal against the local court’s ruling denying the substitution of the unserved part of a sentence with a more lenient one.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that procedural deadlines must be strictly observed to ensure legal certainty, and valid reasons for missing them can only be objective, insurmountable circumstances that did not depend on the person’s will. The Court established that the attorney received a copy of the challenged decision to his email on July 2, 2025, as confirmed by the delivery report, and therefore, the seven-day period for filing an appeal began to run from that date. The defense counsel’s arguments regarding the occupation of the city and the change of his business address were rejected, as the attorney himself initiated the receipt of the decision to a specific email address, to which it was sent.
