Case No. 380/12552/25 dated 08/25/2026
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:** Challenging the inaction of the Pension Fund regarding the refusal to index a pension through the recalculation of the average wage indicator and a demand to compel the authority to carry out such a recalculation using the relevant coefficients.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court focused not on the substance of the indexation, but on the procedural issue of compliance with the time limits for filing an appeal to the court. The Court emphasized that the right to indexation is not absolute and is limited by the six-month period provided for by Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine. Since a pension is a periodic payment, its amount is known to the pensioner every month; therefore, reference to ignorance of the violation of rights is not a valid reason for missing the deadline. The Court emphasized that the passive behavior of a person who has not inquired about the correctness of the accruals for a long time cannot be a ground for the reinstatement of procedural deadlines. The Court of Appeal made a mistake by failing to assess the Pension Fund’s arguments regarding the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the deadline for filing the lawsuit. Consequently, in order to establish the circumstances of whether the reasons for missing the deadline were valid, the case must be reviewed again.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the Court of Appeal and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
Case No. 120/16733/24 dated 08/25/2026
Greetings. As a specialist 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:** Challenging the refusal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to grant and pay a one-time financial assistance in connection with the death of a serviceman who was involved in a traffic accident while performing his official duties.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the key to refusing the payment of assistance is not the fact of holding a person administratively liable, but the establishment of the very fact of committing an offense that led to death.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the death of a serviceman makes it impossible to initiate proceedings in an administrative offense case; however, this does not mean that the fact of a violation of the Traffic Rules cannot be established by the court based on other evidence.
* In this case, the materials of the official investigation confirmed that the serviceman’s death occurred as a result of his failure to comply with the requirements of Clause 12.1 of the Traffic Rules of Ukraine (choosing a safe speed), which is in direct causal link with the traffic accident.
* The Court noted that the courts of lower instances mistakenly ignored the legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the factual circumstances of the death are decisive, rather than the presence or absence of a resolution on holding one administratively liable.
* Therefore, since death occurred as a resas a consequence of the commission of an administrative offense by a serviceman, the law expressly prohibits the payment of a one-time monetary allowance.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts violated the norms of substantive law by failing to take into account the practice of the Supreme Court, which led to the adoption of erroneous decisions.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision, by which it completely denied the claims of PERSON_1.
Case No. 910/8857/25 dated 08/18/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from LLC “Fitness Club ‘Galaxy'” in favor of the Kyiv City Council of over 5 million UAH of unjustifiably saved funds in the amount of rent for the actual use of a land plot without formal title documents.
2. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial, guided by the following arguments:
* The Court confirmed that the owner of real estate on someone else’s land is the actual user of the plot and is obliged to pay funds for its use on the basis of Art. 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
* A key issue for calculating the debt amount is determining the correct rental rate, which depends on the intended purpose of the land.
* The appellate court groundlessly applied a 5% rate, relying solely on one of the types of activity of the fitness club indicated in the registers, and ignored other evidence.
* The court did not provide a proper assessment of the defendant’s arguments that the actual use of the plot is related to the maintenance of physical culture and sports facilities, and not to commercial real estate leasing.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate instance failed to fulfill its duty to comprehensively and fully clarify the circumstances of the case, which is a violation of procedural norms.
* Since the cassation court does not have the authority to establish new facts or re-evaluate evidence, the case was returned for reconsideration in order to establish the actual nature of the land use.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, set aside the ruling of the appellate commercial court, and remand the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 916/3908/24 dated 08/26/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Distribution of expenses for professional legal assistance between the parties in a case regarding the termination of a land lease agreement, the return of a land plot, and the recovery of funds following a cassation review.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court was guided by the principle of proportional distribution of legal costs, since the claims were satisfied partially (two non-property claims were satisfied, oneproperty — no), which in proportion amounts to 2/3 in favor of the plaintiff and 1/3 in favor of the defendant.
* A key point was the issue of foreseeability of expenses for the opposing party: the court indicated that an increase in the cost of attorney’s services, formalized by an act after the court’s decision was rendered, cannot be imposed on the other party, as they could not have reasonably foreseen such expenses.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to freely determine an attorney’s fee is indisputable; however, for the purpose of recovering expenses from the other party, these expenses must be justified, proportionate, and comply with the conditions stipulated in the agreement at the time of the case consideration.
* The court independently recalculated the cost of the defendant’s attorney’s participation in hearings, applying the hourly rate provided for in the initial agreement, instead of the inflated amount agreed upon in the act after the proceedings were completed.
* When assessing the plaintiff’s expenses, the court found them to be justified and proportionate, taking into account the complexity of the case and the scope of work performed.
* Considering that both parties claimed expenses that were similar in size and scope, the court performed a set-off between them.
* The final decision was based on the balance of interests of the parties and the principles of commercial litigation regarding the reimbursement of expenses that are real and necessary.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the motions of both parties and, after performing a set-off, ordered the recovery of 13,666.66 UAH in legal assistance expenses from Edvit Capital LLC in favor of the Karolino-Buhaz Village Council.
**Case No. 440/13835/23 dated 08/25/2026**
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of an heir’s motion to substitute a party (the claimant) in enforcement proceedings in a case regarding the accrual and payment of compensation for the loss of a portion of income due to the violation of pension payment deadlines.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court proceeded from the fact that the right to inheritance arises only with respect to those sums that belonged to the decedent during their lifetime but were not received by them.
– The key factor is the moment the right to payment arises: since, as of the date of the plaintiff’s death, the court decision on the recovery of compensation had not yet been rendered, she had not acquired the right to these funds during her lifetime.
– According to the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine, rights that are inseparably linked to the person of the decedent are not included in the estate.
– The court emphasized that procedural succession is possible only when the disputed legal relations allow for the transfer of rights and obligations, which did not occur in this case.
– The appellant’s reference to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was rejected, as the circumstances of that case are not identical to this situation.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the substantive law, since in the absence of a right to payment on the part of the decedent at the time of death, such rightdoes not pass to the heirs.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the substitution of a party in the enforcement proceedings.
Case No. 420/37294/25 dated 08/25/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the decision of the Institute’s expert team to revoke the plaintiff’s Group 2 disability status without conducting a personal examination and repeat medical assessment.
2. The court established that the defendant violated the procedure stipulated by Order No. 1338, as it conducted a review of the validity of the previous MSEC (Medical and Social Expert Commission) decision and revoked the plaintiff’s disability in absentia, without performing a re-evaluation of the person’s functional state. The court emphasized that although the defendant had the right to conduct a review, it was obliged to schedule a re-evaluation and duly notify the plaintiff, which was not done. The court also drew attention to the fact that the defendant itself had previously acknowledged the necessity of the plaintiff’s presence for examination, but subsequently ignored this, making the decision solely on the basis of document analysis. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the lawfulness of revoking disability in absentia, noting that current legislation requires adherence to an assessment procedure that includes a full medical examination. The court also underscored that the presence of a serious diagnosis (myocardial infarction) in the plaintiff required a thorough investigation, which was not conducted. In conclusion, the court reached the determination that the procedural violation is fundamental and negates the legality of the adopted administrative act.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which had granted the claim and declared the decision to revoke the disability unlawful and cancelled it.
Case No. 910/11067/20 dated 08/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of a motion by a private enforcement officer regarding the foreclosure on the debtor’s real estate, the title to which was not properly registered in the State Register.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the execution of a court decision is an integral part of the right to judicial protection; therefore, the impossibility of enforcement due to the lack of registration of title to the debtor’s property should not block the collection process. The court established that the transaction, on the basis of which the property was alienated to a third party (Selitok Group LLC), was declared invalid by the court due to the bad faith of the parties’ actions aimed at evading the fulfillment of obligations. Although, formally, ownership in the register was held by another person, the court emphasized that state registration is only an official confirmation of a right, not its primary source. Since the groundsand the grounds for the transfer of ownership to Selitok Group LLC ceased to exist, and the debtor is in actual possession of the property, the court recognized the foreclosure on such object as lawful. The court also noted that the enforcement officer had proved the absence of other assets of the debtor sufficient to satisfy the debt, which is a key condition for applying the procedure of foreclosure on real estate.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, which had granted the motion of the private enforcement officer to foreclose on the debtor’s real estate.
Case No. 640/17708/21 dated 08/25/2026
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:** Challenging the NEURC resolution on imposing a fine on Frey LLC for violating reporting requirements due to procedural irregularities during the regulator’s consideration of the case.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the NEURC violated the procedure for bringing [the entity] to liability, as it failed to ensure proper notification of the licensee regarding the consideration of the inspection results.
* A key factor was that the regulator sent all documents and meeting notifications to an address and email that were not officially registered for the plaintiff in the Unified State Register (USR).
* The court emphasized that for a legal entity, the official channel of communication is the information entered into the USR; therefore, sending documents to outdated addresses is not considered proper notification.
* Consequently, the plaintiff was effectively deprived of the right to participate in the meeting of the collegiate body, provide explanations, and submit objections, which constitutes a gross violation of the procedure for making a decision by a subject of authority.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the procedure is a mandatory condition for the legality of a decision, and the regulator’s attempts to justify its actions by referring to outdated data do not exempt it from the duty to act in the manner prescribed by law.
* The NEURC’s arguments that the plaintiff had the opportunity to learn about the meeting from other sources were rejected as failing to refute the fact of improper notification.
* In summary, the court concluded that the violation of the case consideration procedure is an independent and sufficient ground for canceling the resolution on the imposition of a fine.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the lawsuit of Frey LLC was granted, and the resolution on the imposition of a fine was canceled.
Case No. 160/37447/25 dated 08/25/2026
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, through a separate administrative lawsuit, to challenge the actions of a City Council representative who participated in a court hearing in another case, considering such representation unlawful due to a violation of requirements regarding non-incompatibility of legal practice.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that actions related to the representation of a person’s interests in court are exclusively procedural, rather than managerial, and therefore do not create a public-law dispute.
– The Court stressed that issues regarding a representative’s authority and their right to participate in a case must be resolved exclusively within the framework of the judicial proceeding where the person is acting as a representative, rather than by filing a separate lawsuit.
– Since such procedural actions do not result in the emergence or termination of legal relations outside the scope of the judicial process, they cannot, in principle, be an independent subject of a lawsuit in any type of legal proceeding.
– The Supreme Court recognized as erroneous the approach of the appellate instance, which attempted to assess the lawfulness of the representative’s actions (the issue of incompatibility) within the framework of a case regarding the refusal to initiate proceedings, as this exceeds the scope of a jurisdictional dispute.
– The Court confirmed that the refusal to initiate proceedings on the basis of Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 170 of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine was lawful, as the dispute is not subject to consideration under administrative judicial procedure.
– Thus, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between procedural actions in court and the actions of public authorities that are subject to appeal in an administrative order.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the refusal to initiate proceedings in the case.
Case No. 120/7478/25 of 08/25/2026
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging by LLC “Enera Vinnytsia” the resolution and order of the NEURC regarding the imposition of a fine and the obligation to remedy violations of licensing conditions, adopted as a result of an inspection under martial law.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that during martial law, the NEURC has the right to conduct inspections if there is a threat that has a significant negative impact on the rights of citizens, the environment, or the security of the state.
* The Court noted that the appellate instance approached the case too formally, limiting itself to merely stating the fact of the martial law, without examining the actual grounds for conducting the inspection.
* The appellate court failed to verify whether the identified violations actually posed the “threat of significant negative impact,” which is the key criterion for the lawfulness of an inspection under Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 303.
* The Supreme Court stressed that courts are obliged to independently investigate the nature of the violations and their impact on energy security, as this directly concerns the lawfulness of the regulator’s actions.
* It was also pointed out that it is necessary to assess whether the matters being inspected had already been the subject of previous control measures, which could indicate the unlawfulness of imposing liability again.
* The Court emphasized thatAdministrative proceedings require judges to play an active role in establishing all circumstances, rather than merely engaging in a passive analysis of the parties’ arguments.
* Ultimately, due to the incomplete establishment of the factual circumstances of the case, the decision of the appellate court was deemed premature and failing to meet the requirements of justification.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances.
Case No. 917/1789/25 dated 25/08/2026
Here is an analysis of the court decision prepared in an interview format:
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of the defendant’s motion to recover from the plaintiff the costs of professional legal assistance incurred during the cassation proceedings.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the reality of legal costs, as enshrined in the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The panel of judges determined that the claimed amount of UAH 25,000 was excessive, as the case did not involve complex legal qualification, and the defendant’s legal position had already been established in the lower courts. The court noted that the absence of a separate document titled “detailed description of services” is not critical if the content of the services provided and their cost are reflected in the certificate of acceptance-handover, which allows for an assessment of the scope of work performed. At the same time, the court emphasized that while it does not have the right to reduce costs on its own initiative, it did so based on the plaintiff’s substantiated motion. Considering the volume of documents prepared and the time spent by the attorney, the court concluded that a fair amount of compensation is UAH 10,000. Thus, the court balanced the party’s right to reimbursement of expenses with the prevention of an excessive financial burden on the other party.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the motion, ordering the Military Unit to pay TOV “Remtekhnaladka” UAH 10,000 in legal assistance costs, while denying the remainder of the amount.
Case No. 921/150/26 dated 25/08/2026
Here is a professional analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue regarding the allocation of court costs for professional legal assistance incurred by the defendant in the court of cassation.
2. In rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle that the right to reimbursement of legal assistance costs is guaranteed; however, their amount must be proven, documented, and meet the criteria of reality, reasonableness, and proportionality. The Supreme Court emphasized that although a party submitted proper evidence to confirm payment for the attorney’s services, the court is not deprived of the right to evaluate these costs through the prism of reasonableness criteria, even in the absence of a motion from the other party for their reduction. The court established that the scope of work performed by the attorney (preparation of a response to the cassation appeal) did not require significant efforts, as the position from
