Case No. 907/491/17 of 08/25/2026
The subject of this dispute is the right of a person who did not participate in bankruptcy proceedings to file an appeal against a court ruling on the recognition of a creditor’s monetary claims against a debtor.
The following are the key arguments relied upon by the Supreme Court:
1. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal for persons who did not participate in the case arises only when the court of first instance has directly adjudicated matters concerning their rights, interests, or obligations.
2. The Supreme Court underscored that such a connection must be evident and unconditional, rather than probable or indirect, as in the case of “Assisto” LLC, which is merely a creditor of another creditor.
3. The Court noted that findings made by the court regarding established circumstances in a case do not have prejudicial significance for a person who did not participate in the proceedings; therefore, they cannot be considered as adjudicating that person’s rights.
4. It is important that a legal assessment provided by a court regarding a specific fact is not at all binding upon a commercial court in other cases, and therefore, it creates no legal consequences for the applicant.
5. The Court indicated that it is impossible to interfere with a final court decision merely because a person considers the motives set forth therein to be erroneous, provided those motives do not impose any obligations upon that person.
6. Given that the contested ruling concerned exclusively claims against the debtor in the insolvency case, the appellate court lawfully closed the proceedings, as the rights of “Assisto” LLC had not been violated.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of proceedings unchanged.
Case No. 320/1897/23 of 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the conclusion of the State Audit Service of Ukraine, which obligated the contracting authority (“Ukrgasvydobuvannya”) to remedy violations of public procurement legislation committed during the determination of the tender winner.
**2. Arguments of the Court:**
The Supreme Court emphasized that the “24-hour” mechanism for correcting discrepancies, provided for by Article 29 of the Law “On Public Procurement,” cannot be used to submit documents that were entirely absent from the tender proposal at the time of its submission. The Court distinguished between the concepts of “deficiencies” (which can be clarified) and “non-compliance with qualification criteria” (which is grounds for rejection of a proposal). In this case, the participant did not provide cost estimate documentation or reference letters, which made it impossible to identify the experience as analogous, and therefore, the proposal was subject to mandatory rejection. The lower courts erroneously focused only on the fact of the submission of documents after the deadline, ignoring the fact that the participant did not confirm their compliance with the qualification criteria at the stage of psubmission of a proposal. Thus, the actions of the contracting authority, which designated such a participant as the winner, were recognized as violating the requirements of the Law, and the auditors’ conclusion was deemed lawful.
**3. Court decision:**
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and rendered a new decision, by which it fully denied the claim of JSC “Ukrgasvydobuvannya”.
**Case No. 910/2116/21 (910/17836/21) dated 08/12/2026**
The subject of this dispute is a request to recognize a mortgage as terminated, as the plaintiff believed that the obligation under the mortgage agreement had been fulfilled and the title to the mortgaged property had been transferred to another person illegally.
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the fact that the principal obligation under the loan agreement, which was secured by the mortgage, had not been fulfilled or terminated. It was established that the apartment sale and purchase agreement, to which the plaintiff referred, was concluded during the period when an attachment (seizure) was in effect on this property, imposed by a court ruling within the framework of another case. Furthermore, the courts drew attention to the fact that the right of claim under the loan and mortgage agreements had been lawfully assigned to other persons, which is confirmed by a chain of relevant agreements. An important fact was that the legality of the agreements on the assignment of the right of claim had already been the subject of judicial review in another case, in which the claim was denied. Since the principal obligation continues to exist, there are no grounds for the termination of the mortgage. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law, in particular, Article 509 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances without changes.
**Case No. 520/7422/24 dated 08/27/2026**
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:** Challenging the resolution of Ukrtransbezpeka on the imposition of a fine on a carrier for the absence of a tachograph inspection and adaptation report in a bus performing intercity transport over a distance of more than 50 km.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that legislation on road transport provides for the duty to record the work and rest schedule of drivers, but does not limit this process exclusively to the presence of a tachograph.
* The court emphasized that, in accordance with Clause 6.3 of Regulation No. 340, in the event that a vehicle is not equipped with a tachograph, the driver is obliged to maintain an individual control booklet.
* A key point was that the driver’s possession and presentation of an individual control booklet during an inspection constitutes proper fulfillment of the legislative requirements regarding the recording of working hours.
* The court rejected the position of the regulatory authority that the presence of a tachograph is an alternative-free requirement, indicating that in the absence of technical capability or the device itself, an individualindividual logbook is a lawful method of recording data.
* Since the case materials confirmed that the driver had an individual control logbook in his possession and presented it, there is no constituent element of an offense in the actions of the carrier.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of control is labor safety, rather than the formal presence of a specific device under any circumstances; therefore, priority is given to the actual tracking of the driver’s time.
* In summary, the court concluded that the appellate instance erroneously overturned the decision of the first instance, which had correctly assessed the absence of grounds for holding the plaintiff liable.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to cancel the fine.
Case No. 320/11927/22 dated 08/27/2026
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:** Challenging the actions of ARMA regarding the termination of average salary payments to an employee who had signed a volunteer contract with the Territorial Defense, based on amendments to labor legislation that abolished such a guarantee for military personnel.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The court clearly distinguished between the legal status of a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and a member of a volunteer formation of a territorial community (DFTG), noting that the latter are not servicemen within the meaning of the Law “On Military Duty and Military Service.”
– It was established that the amendments to Part 3 of Article 119 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, introduced by Law No. 2352-IX, apply exclusively to persons performing military service and do not extend to territorial defense volunteers.
– The court emphasized that since the plaintiff is not a serviceman, the restrictions on average salary payments provided for military personnel do not apply to her.
– The court justified the guarantees for the preservation of the plaintiff’s earnings based on Part 1 of Article 119 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which regulates the preservation of payments for the time of performing state or public duties and has not undergone changes in this regard.
– The court rejected ARMA’s arguments regarding the equating of volunteers to servicemen in matters of social protection, indicating that this does not provide grounds for depriving them of labor guarantees provided for by the Labor Code.
– The court concluded that since the plaintiff does not receive monetary compensation as a serviceman, the termination of her average salary payments by the employer constitutes a violation of labor rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the first and appellate courts unchanged, confirming the plaintiff’s right to receive her average salary for the period of her performance of duties as part of a volunteer formation.
Case No. 460/14882/23 dated 08/27/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared by the respon1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of holding the military unit commander disciplinary liable (reprimand) following the results of an internal investigation regarding the transfer of military personnel who had not undergone basic training to another unit for the performance of combat missions.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the military unit commander bears personal responsibility for combat training, the moral and psychological state, and the preservation of the life and health of subordinate personnel. It was established that the plaintiff, by initiating the transfer of military personnel who had just arrived at the unit and had not undergone basic training to a subunit preparing to perform combat missions, effectively put their lives and health at risk. The court noted that the commander is obligated to know the state of affairs in the unit entrusted to him and the level of training of his subordinates; therefore, his reliance on the lack of a duty to conduct basic training personally is groundless. Procedural violations during the internal investigation pointed out by the plaintiff are not sufficient grounds for revoking the disciplinary penalty, as the fact of a military discipline violation was proven. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the right to receive explanations from the person under investigation is a right, and not an obligation, of the commission, provided that the existing materials are sufficient for reaching conclusions. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and the appellant’s arguments do not refute the facts of negligent performance of official duties established by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, leaving the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged.
Case No. 160/30042/23 dated 08/27/2026
1. Subject of the dispute: The dispute concerns the lawfulness of non-payment of monetary support to a person reinstated to the position of head of a penal institution, which had undergone organizational changes (reorganization/optimization) at the time of reinstatement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances did not establish key facts: whether the position to which the plaintiff was reinstated existed at the time the order was issued, and what specific legal consequences the optimization of the institution had for this position.
– The court emphasized that if a person is reinstated to a “formally existing” but actually vacant position, this is not considered proper execution of a court decision, as there is no real admission to work.
– The court departed from its previous position, noting that in the event of the impossibility of real reinstatement to a position due to its reduction or reorganization, the person acquires the right to average earnings for the time of delay in the execution of the court decision, and not just to monetary support for the time actually worked.and time.
– The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts did not assess whether the institution’s legal successor is a proper defendant in the matter of payment of funds.
– The Court also noted that determining the legal nature of the disputed relations (whether it is a delay in the execution of a court decision or non-payment of monetary allowance) is the duty of the court, not just the plaintiff.
– Since the courts of first and appellate instances did not clarify the circumstances regarding the actual status of the position and legal succession, their decisions were recognized as unfounded.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all factual circumstances of the case.
Case No. 991/8984/25 dated 08/21/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your interview:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is a claim by a prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office regarding the recognition of assets (a car, five apartments, and a derivative) as unfounded and their mandatory forfeiture to the state revenue due to the inconsistency of the value of this property with the legal income of a People’s Deputy of Ukraine and her close associates.
**2. Arguments of the Court**
* The Court established that the defendant (People’s Deputy) is a subject covered by anti-corruption legislation, and the assets were acquired by her relatives and related persons at her direction or under her actual control.
* The Court applied the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof, establishing that the totality of the prosecutor’s evidence (correspondence in messengers, mobile phone connection data, testimony regarding assistance in registering property) is significantly more convincing than the version of the defendants.
* The Court took a critical view of the defendants’ claims regarding the existence of “hidden savings” (in particular, 300 thousand US dollars, allegedly gifted by a relative in 2013), as these statements were not confirmed by any documents, and contradictory witness testimonies and materials of criminal proceedings refuted the possibility of the existence of such funds.
* The Court confirmed that the legal income of the defendants for the relevant period was disproportionate to the value of the acquired property, which automatically shifts the burden of proving the legality of the origin of the funds to the defendants themselves, which they failed to meet.
* The value of the assets was determined based on the conclusions of forensic valuation and construction expert examinations, which the court recognized as proper and admissible evidence, despite the defense’s objections regarding the qualification of the experts.
* The Court rejected the motion to recognize evidence (in particular, data from a mobile phone) as inadmissible, indicating that the search was conducted as a matter of urgency to secure property, which complies with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
* The Court emphasized that for a civil claim on the forfeiture of unfounded assets, it is not mandatory to prove the commission of a criminal offense (corruption); it is sufficient onlythe fact of the absence of lawful income for the acquisition of the property.
**3. Court decision**
The court granted the claim in full, recognized the specified assets as unfounded, and ordered their recovery as revenue for the state.
Case No. 160/6661/24 dated 08/27/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the regional Military Medical Commission (MMC), which refused to review the causal link of a serviceman’s illness by providing a written response (letter) rather than adopting a separate resolution.
**2. Arguments of the court**
* The Supreme Court emphasized that an administrative court lacks the authority to interfere in the discretion of the MMC regarding the assessment of medical diagnoses, as the court is not a specialized medical institution.
* The court distinguished between the concepts of “MMC resolution” as a result of expert activity and “decision based on the results of the consideration of an appeal,” which is regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals.”
* The panel of judges established that the obligation to formalize a decision specifically as a resolution arises only when a complaint is recognized as well-founded and the commission reviews the previous conclusion or refers the person for a re-examination.
* If, based on the results of the review, the MMC does not see grounds for a revision, it is not obligated to adopt a resolution and may provide a reasoned response in the form of a letter.
* The court emphasized that the form of the document (letter or resolution) does not limit the serviceman’s right to judicial protection, as such a letter is an act of individual action that can be appealed in court or to the Central MMC.
* Thus, if the commission has reviewed the materials, provided a reasoned refusal, and explained the procedure for further appeal, this is not considered unlawful inaction.
**3. Court decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal and left unchanged the resolution of the appellate court, which had denied the satisfaction of the claim.
Case No. 380/14910/24 dated 08/27/2026
The subject of the dispute in this case is the lawfulness of substituting a debtor in enforcement proceedings (the Main Department of the State Migration Service in Lviv Oblast with its successor — the Western Interregional Department of the State Migration Service) before the entry regarding the termination of the legal entity is made in the Unified State Register.
When rendering the decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the following arguments:
1. The court emphasized that procedural succession in enforcement proceedings is possible only upon the actual departure of a party, which is confirmed by relevant data.
2. A key factor for the substitution of a debtor in cases not related to public authority functions (as in this case — a labor dispute) is the official termination of the legal entity, which, according to the law, is confirmed by an entry in the Unified State Register.
3. Since at the time of consideration onregarding the application for substitution of the debtor, the entry on the termination of the Main Department of the State Migration Service in Lviv Oblast was absent in the register; therefore, the grounds for the substitution of a party in the writ of execution were premature.
4. The Court distinguished between categories of disputes: if a dispute concerns the exercise of administrative competence, legal succession may arise from the moment of the transfer of functions; however, in disputes regarding reinstatement and payment of wages, the general rules of civil legislation regarding the termination of a legal entity apply.
5. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the existence of an exceptional legal problem, noting that the practice on this issue is already established and consistent.
6. Considering the absence of an entry regarding the termination of the debtor, the courts of lower instances committed an error by applying the norms on legal succession to relations where the legal entity has not yet ceased its existence.
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of lower instances and rendered a new decision, by which it refused to satisfy the application for the substitution of the debtor in the writs of execution.
Case No. 140/14780/25 dated 08/27/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the dismissal of a military serviceman from his position and his placement at the disposal of the commander, as well as the issue of compliance with the time limits for filing an action with the court in administrative proceedings.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court of appeal committed a significant procedural error by independently leaving the claim without consideration due to the expiration of the time limit, without providing the plaintiff with the opportunity to justify the validity of such delay. The Court emphasized that, according to the norms of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine, even if the court perceives a lapse of the time limit, it is obliged to grant the person the right to submit an application for its renewal or to indicate other valid reasons, which was not done in this case. Furthermore, the court of appeal exceeded its powers, as the defendant did not even raise the issue of the plaintiff’s lapse of the time limit for filing an action with the court in its appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the lapse of a time limit is not an unconditional ground that allows the court of appeal to go beyond the arguments of the appeal on its own initiative. Thus, the actions of the court of appeal were recognized as premature and as violating a person’s right to judicial protection. The Court also referred to its established practice, which requires that the plaintiff be mandatorily provided with an opportunity to be heard regarding time limits before a decision is made to leave a claim without consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of appeal in the part concerning leaving the claim without consideration and remanded the case to the same court of appeal for continuation of the hearing on the merits.
