Case No. 757/7435/24-ts of 08/19/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your interview:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A lawsuit filed by an individual against the NACP (National Agency on Corruption Prevention) and the NGO “RUKH CHESNO” for the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation by recognizing information regarding the commission of high treason as unreliable and seeking its refutation.
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Supreme Court primarily drew attention to a gross violation of procedural norms by the lower courts, which reviewed the case under summary proceedings without summoning the parties, despite the existence of motions for review under general proceedings and the significant public interest in the case.
– The Court emphasized that lawsuits filed by public figures regarding the protection of reputation require a fundamental review, and the courts’ disregard of parties’ motions to be summoned to a hearing violates the principle of equality of parties and the right to be heard.
– A key factor for the final decision was the death of the plaintiff during the proceedings, which was confirmed by official data.
– Since the subject of the dispute is the protection of personal non-property rights (honor, dignity, business reputation), which are inextricably linked to the individual, they are not part of an inheritance and do not allow for legal succession.
– Since the challenged decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were recognized as unlawful due to procedural violations, the Supreme Court concluded that they could not remain in force even considering the fact of the plaintiff’s death.
– Therefore, in the absence of the possibility of legal succession in such legal relations, the only legal recourse is to close the case proceedings.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and closed the proceedings in the case in connection with the death of the plaintiff and the impossibility of legal succession in disputes regarding the protection of personal non-property rights.
Case No. 922/3160/25 of 09/02/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of funds from JSC “Ukrnafta” in favor of the Kharkiv City Council in the amount of rent for the actual use of a land plot without properly executed title documents.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Court proceeded from the fundamental principle of the unity of the legal fate of a land plot and the real estate object located thereon, according to which the owner of a building becomes the actual user of the land.
* Since the land lease agreement terminated due to the expiration of its term and a new agreement was not concluded, the use of the plot during the disputed period occurred without sufficient legal grounds.
* In such cases, condictio obligations arise (Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine), as the actual user groundlessly retained (saved) funds that they should have paid as rent.
* The Court emphasized that fromthe essence of the land acceptance certificate does not extend the term of the lease agreement, but merely testifies to the failure to fulfill the obligation to return the land plot.
* The calculation of the amount of unjustifiably retained funds was recognized as lawful, as it was based on the data of the normative monetary valuation and information from the State Land Cadastre.
* The Supreme Court confirmed its established practice, noting that the right of lease arises exclusively from the moment of state registration, and not from the moment of acquiring ownership of the building.
* The appellant’s arguments regarding the need to depart from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court were rejected as unfounded, as the judicial panel sees no grounds for changing the legal position in this category of cases.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrnafta” and upheld the decisions of the lower courts on the recovery of funds.
**Case No. 910/3239/26 dated 09/01/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the court returning the statement of claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s failure to remedy the deficiencies specified in the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without movement.
2. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff, while attempting to remedy the deficiencies, actually filed new claims that were not stated initially, and failed to properly distribute them between the two defendants. The Supreme Court emphasized that the value of the claim indicated by the plaintiff did not correspond to the total amount of the claims, which indicates a disregard for the requirements of Article 162 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the right to change the subject of the claim can be exercised only after the opening of proceedings in the case, and not at the stage of remedying the deficiencies of the statement of claim. It was also noted that the court does not have the authority to independently formulate claims on behalf of the plaintiff, as this is the exclusive prerogative of the latter. The appellant’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to access justice were rejected, as the right to judicial protection must be exercised exclusively in the manner prescribed by procedural law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not fulfill the requirements of the ruling on leaving the statement of claim without movement, which is an imperative ground for returning the statement.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 904/40/26 dated 09/03/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of insurance indemnity by way of recourse from the owner of a tugboat, whose liability, in the plaintiff’s opinion, should have been covered by an insurance contract; however, the insurer refused to pay due to the absence of the risk in the contract.“towing”.
2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that an insurance contract is the result of the free will of the parties, and its terms, including the list of insurance risks, are mandatory for performance. The courts established that liability during towing was identified as a separate risk in the Insurance Rules; however, the parties did not include this risk in the coverage table of the specific contract. Since the disputed event did not fall under the list of insured risks, the insurer lawfully denied the payment of insurance indemnity. Consequently, the obligation to compensate for damages caused to the property of a third party lies directly with the owner of the tugboat (the defendant) in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code of Ukraine. The court of cassation instance emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence if the courts of lower instances correctly applied the rules of law and assessed the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court also referred to its previous practice regarding the limitation of the insured’s liability only to those cases where the insurer has no obligation to pay under the contract.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and dismissed the defendant’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 904/3878/25 of 26/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided to you. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** A prosecutor filed a lawsuit requesting the termination of the right of permanent use of a state-owned land plot due to systematic non-payment of land tax and its actual non-use by the user.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court indicated that the courts of lower instances committed serious procedural errors in assessing the prosecutor’s right to represent the interests of the state. The courts of first and appellate instances groundlessly denied the claim on its merits, although if they had doubts regarding the prosecutor’s authority, they should have acted differently. According to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, if a court determines that there are no grounds for representation by a prosecutor, the lawsuit should be left without consideration rather than decided on its merits with a denial. The courts actually ignored these procedural requirements, which rendered their decisions unlawful. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor fulfilled their duty by notifying the state authority about filing the lawsuit, therefore, the grounds for representation were duly substantiated. Since the courts did not examine the case in compliance with these procedural rules, the decisions cannot remain in force.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 910/15994/25 of 26/08/2026The subject of the dispute is the claim of JSC “Ukrainian Railways” against the State Treasury Service bodies regarding the compulsory debiting of funds from the debtor’s accounts for the execution of a court decision, as well as the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum.
The Court proceeded from the premise that the Treasury bodies, in legal relations concerning the execution of court decisions, act not as equal participants in commercial relations, but as subjects of authority. Since the dispute concerns the verification of the legality of the actions or inaction of such a subject during the performance of its public functions, it is of a public-legal nature. The Court emphasized that the participation of the Treasury in the process of executing decisions under the Law “On State Guarantees Regarding the Execution of Court Decisions” does not make it a party to enforcement proceedings within the meaning of commercial procedure. The claim for the recovery of inflationary losses and 3% per annum in this case is derivative of the primary claim against the Treasury, therefore it cannot be considered separately within the framework of commercial proceedings. The courts of lower instances correctly established that such a dispute falls under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. Accordingly, the termination of proceedings in the commercial case is lawful and well-founded.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court on the termination of proceedings.
Case No. 520/15295/25 dated 07/09/2026
**1. Subject of the dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions and decisions of local self-government bodies regarding the compulsory dismantling of a fence, which was recognized as an unauthorized object of improvement.
**2. Court arguments**
* The Court emphasized that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit is an instrument for ensuring legal certainty, and therefore it cannot be ignored without compelling reasons.
* A key factor was establishing the moment when the plaintiff became aware of the violation of their rights: the Court concluded that the enterprise was aware of the dismantling back in September 2023, as its representatives themselves provided letters of guarantee regarding the voluntary demolition of the fence.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere fact of the imposition of martial law is not an automatic basis for extending procedural deadlines if the plaintiff has not proven a direct causal link between the hostilities and the inability to file the lawsuit on time.
* The Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that they were “misled” by letters from other departments, noting that these documents did not concern the lawfulness of the installation of the fence itself.
* A clear distinction was made between the concepts of “became aware” and “should have become aware,” where the Court pointed to the passive behavior of the plaintiff, who did not take reasonable measures to protect their interests for six months.
* Considering the significant expiration of the time limit (from September 2023 to June 2025) and the lack of evidence of objective…any obstacles, the court recognized the reasons for the missed deadline as invalid.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, confirming the lawfulness of leaving the claim without consideration regarding the appeal of the dismantling decisions.
Case No. 907/875/24 dated 09/03/2026
Here is a detailed legal analysis of the court decision in Case No. 907/875/24:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of overpaid funds in the amount of 5,622,330.15 UAH from a producer of electricity under the “feed-in” tariff, which arose as a result of the commercial metering administrator adjusting the volumes of supplied electricity to zero due to its production in a temporarily occupied territory.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court proceeded from the fact that commercial metering data are not final and may be adjusted by the administrator (NPC Ukrenergo) upon receipt of new information regarding actual production volumes.
* It was established that the defendant’s generation facilities were located in a temporarily occupied territory and operated asynchronously with the Unified Energy System of Ukraine, which is confirmed by letters from the distribution system operator.
* The court emphasized that the legal status of an occupied territory does not depend on the existence of a separate government decision, but rather has an informative significance; therefore, adjusting the data to “0 kWh” was lawful.
* The Supreme Court applied the legal position formed by the Joint Chamber in Case No. 916/5633/23, according to which NEURC Protocol No. 48-p dated 07/03/2023 is a proper act of a recommendatory nature, on the basis of which the metering administrator had the right to adjust the data.
* The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the plaintiff’s “contradictory behavior” (*venire contra factum proprium*), noting that clarifying data through the receipt of reliable information about the impossibility of transmitting energy to the grid is not bad faith.
* It was also noted that the possibility of adjusting data existed even before the adoption of NEURC Resolution No. 759, as it merely specified already existing accounting mechanisms.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that it sees no grounds to depart from its established practice, as law enforcement in similar cases is consistent.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, by which the claims for the recovery of funds were satisfied in full.
Case No. 870/4/25 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:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Consideration of an appellate appeal against a court ruling on the issuance of a writ of execution for the enforcement of an arbitration tribunal’s decision regarding the recovery of debt under a freight forwarding services agreement.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court has constated that when considering an application for the issuance of an enforcement document, the commercial court does not re-evaluate the legality of the arbitral award on its merits, but only verifies the presence or absence of an exhaustive list of grounds for refusal defined by Article 355 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
– The court established that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, and the dispute was within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal; therefore, there are no grounds for setting aside the award due to a lack of competence.
– Regarding the arguments concerning the violation of the procedure for forming the composition of the tribunal, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent did not exercise the right to challenge an arbitrator during the proceedings, and the case materials do not contain evidence of a violation of the arbitral tribunal’s regulations.
– The court emphasized that the issue of partial debt repayment is not a ground for refusing to issue a writ of execution, as such circumstances must be taken into account at the stage of enforcement proceedings.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the arbitral award does not violate the rights of third parties and does not contain methods of protection not provided for by law.
– It was also noted that since the arbitral award is effective and has not been set aside, there are no legal obstacles to its compulsory enforcement.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on the issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award.
**Case No. 913/866/21(913/213/25) dated 06/08/2026**
1. The subject of the dispute is the holding of former managers and founders of Sagitta-T LLC liable for the debtor’s obligations (subsidiary liability) due to driving the enterprise to bankruptcy.
2. The court established that during 2017–2018, the company’s management engaged in the withdrawal of funds under the guise of providing financial assistance to related parties without the intent of repayment, which led to a critical deterioration of the financial condition. The court emphasized that the defendants did not provide any evidence to refute the presumption of fault, in particular, they failed to confirm the economic expediency of such transactions. The court paid special attention to the inaction of the last manager, who, after being appointed, evaded the transfer of documentation and seals to the liquidator, which made it impossible to form the liquidation estate. The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to file a claim for subsidiary liability arises precisely due to the impossibility of satisfying creditors’ claims as a result of such intentional actions. The court also noted that the lack of assets in the liquidation estate in this case is a direct consequence of the unlawful conduct of the defendants, and not merely an absence of property. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendants did not prove the good faith of their actions; therefore, joint and several liability in the amount of unsatisfied creditors’ claims is justified.
3. The Supreme Court upheld
