Review of Ukrainian Supreme Court’s decisions for 19/09/2026

Case No. 904/40/26 dated 09/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed this court decision for you. Here is a summary of the essence of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Allocation of litigation costs for professional legal assistance incurred by a third party during the proceedings in the court of cassation.

2. **Court arguments:**
* The court confirmed the third party’s right to reimbursement of attorney’s fees, provided they were actually incurred and documented.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the submission of evidence of expenses is not an unconditional basis for their recovery in full, as the amount must be reasonable and commensurate with the complexity of the case.
* The court took into account that the attorney had already represented the client’s interests in the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, the attorney was deeply familiar with the case files, which significantly simplified the preparation for the cassation stage.
* It was determined that the stated time volume for drafting the response was excessive, and the third party’s legal position itself remained unchanged throughout the entire dispute.
* The court applied the criteria of fairness and proportionality, noting that the fee amount should not be inflated compared to market prices and the scope of work actually performed.
* As a result, the court found expenses in the amount of 8,000 UAH to be justified, while refusing to recover the remaining amount (20,000 UAH), as it did not meet the criteria of necessity and reasonableness.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the motion, ordering the respondent to pay the third party 8,000 UAH for legal assistance instead of the claimed 20,000 UAH.

Case No. 924/776/25 dated 09/02/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

**1. Subject of the dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the termination of a lease agreement for a state (municipal) land plot granted to an individual for the purpose of operating a farm, due to the lessee’s failure to fulfill the obligation to establish such a farm and the subleasing of the land without conducting land auctions.

**2. Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the provision of a land plot for operating a farm is a targeted measure that involves the establishment of a corresponding legal entity, which should be the direct land user.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that subleasing such a plot to third parties who do not have the right to receive land outside of a competitive procedure constitutes the use of the plot for purposes other than its designated purpose.
* The court recognized such actions by the lessee as a material breach of the agreement, as the lessor, upon entering into the agreement, expected the development of a farm, not the realization of profit by the lessee from subleasing.
* The argument regarding the establishment of a farm after the initiation of theThe court rejected the prosecutor’s request, noting that it does not negate the fact of a prolonged breach of the terms of the agreement and the law over the course of 13 years.

* Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that the violation of the designated use of the land is continuous; therefore, the owner’s right to appeal to the court is not limited by timeframes as long as the unlawful use of the plot continues.
* The court also emphasized that the principles of good faith and fairness are fundamental, and a lessee cannot use the simplified procedure for obtaining land to circumvent competitive procedures (land auctions).

**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which terminated the lease agreement and obliged the lessee to return the land plot to the territorial community.

Case No. 675/307/26 dated 09/09/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:

1. The subject of the dispute in the cassation proceedings was the issue of the lawfulness of charging the state for procedural costs related to expert examinations in criminal proceedings where a person was released from criminal liability in connection with a reconciliation of the parties.

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the premise that the issue of allocating procedural costs is a mandatory element of any judicial decision that concludes the proceedings, including rulings on the release from criminal liability. The Court emphasized that the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not contain a prohibition on recovering expert examination costs from a person against whom the proceedings were closed on non-rehabilitating grounds (reconciliation). Referring to established practice, the panel of judges emphasized that the costs for expert examinations initiated by the prosecution must be borne by the accused. The arguments of the lower courts regarding the impossibility of collecting costs due to the person’s minority or the lack of data on their income were found to be untenable. The Supreme Court noted that the lack of income does not exempt a person from the obligation to reimburse costs, and issues of solvency or the involvement of legal representatives cannot be a basis for automatically shifting the financial burden to the state budget.

3. The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amended the decisions of the lower courts, and ordered the recovery of procedural costs for the engagement of experts in the amount of 9,502.72 UAH from PERSON_7 for the benefit of the state.

Case No. 201/6906/21 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a driver for violating traffic safety rules that caused serious bodily injuries to the victim, with an emphasis on the defense’s disagreement with the qualification of actions and severeof the sentence imposed.

2. The court of cassation instance confirmed the legality of the lower courts’ conclusions regarding the proof of the convicted person’s guilt, noting that the driver’s violation of clause 18.1 of the Traffic Regulations (failure to give way to a pedestrian at a crossing) has a direct causal link to the traffic accident. The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance is a court of law, not of fact, and therefore does not re-evaluate evidence that has already been duly examined and reasoned by the courts of previous instances. At the same time, the court acknowledged that the actual sentence of imprisonment imposed by the appellate court is excessively severe, given the age of the convicted person (80 years) and the absence of aggravating circumstances. The panel of judges concluded that the purpose of punishment can be achieved without isolation from society by applying a probationary period. The court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to defense and procedural violations, finding them groundless or such that did not affect the legality of the verdict.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, modifying the court decisions regarding sentencing and releasing the convicted person from serving the primary sentence with a probationary period pursuant to Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Case No. 904/7374/25 dated 15/09/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by the municipal enterprise “Vodokanal” against the decision of the territorial office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine on holding the enterprise liable.

2. In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the fact that the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee acted within the scope of their authority and in compliance with the procedure defined by law. The Supreme Court established that the courts of previous instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law when assessing evidence of the plaintiff’s violation of competition legislation. The appellant’s arguments regarding the incorrect qualification of its actions were rejected, as the case file confirms the fact of abuse of a monopoly position. The court also drew attention to the fact that “Vodokanal’s” arguments do not refute the AMC’s conclusions regarding the existence of negative consequences for the market. As a result, the panel of judges concluded that the challenged decisions of the first-instance and appellate courts are lawful and well-founded. No grounds for their cancellation or modification, as provided for by procedural law, were established.

3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.

Case No. 925/1817/23 dated 15/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional point of view:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of suspending appellate proceedings in a case concerning the invalidation of supplementary agreements to an electricity procurement contract and the recovery of funds until the Constitutional Court of Ukraine renders a decision on the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Lof the Law “On Public Procurement”.

2. The Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the suspension of proceedings in a case is an exceptional measure, which is permissible only in the presence of an objective impossibility to hear the case, which was not established in the present instance. The Court noted that the consideration of a case by the Constitutional Court does not relieve a commercial court of its duty to independently evaluate evidence and establish circumstances relevant to the resolution of the dispute. The Supreme Court emphasized that decisions of the Constitutional Court, as a general rule, have prospective effect and cannot serve as a basis for the automatic suspension of all cases in which similar legal norms are applied. Furthermore, the appellate court did not provide compelling arguments as to why the consideration of a constitutional complaint renders the verification of the lawfulness of the court of first instance’s decision impossible. The importance of adhering to reasonable timeframes for proceedings was also emphasized, as unjustified suspension leads to the protraction of the process. Ultimately, the Court pointed out that references to the practice in other cases do not exempt the appellate instance from the duty to justify the necessity of suspension in each specific case.

3. The Supreme Court decided to satisfy the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling to suspend proceedings, and remit the case to the same appellate court for the continuation of proceedings.

Case No. 295/13843/26 dated 09/14/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is a motion by a defense attorney to change the territorial jurisdiction of criminal proceedings and transfer the case from one court to another, which are located within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.

2. When considering this motion, the Court was guided primarily by the principle of ensuring efficient and expeditious judicial proceedings, as well as by compliance with the rules of jurisdiction defined by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments provided by the defense attorney regarding the necessity of changing the court and concluded that they were not sufficiently substantiated or of such a nature as to hinder an objective consideration of the case in the court to which it was assigned under the rules of territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that a change of jurisdiction is an exceptional measure applied only in the presence of weighty grounds provided for by Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular, to ensure the promptness and efficiency of criminal proceedings. In this instance, the panel of judges did not see any objective obstacles to the administration of justice in the court of first instance. Consequently, the absence of compelling arguments regarding the impossibility of hearing the case in the designated court became the decisive factor for denying the motion.

3. The Supreme Court ordered that the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another court be denied.

Case No. 413/2685/13-к dated 09/08/2026
HereDetailed analysis of the court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of an individual under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional grievous bodily injury resulting in the death of the victim), pursuant to a cassation appeal filed by the convicted person, who requested a reduction of the sentence and the application of amnesty.

2. The court of cassation emphasized that within the framework of cassation proceedings, it lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new factual circumstances of the case, as this is the exclusive competence of lower courts. The panel of judges determined that the courts of first and appellate instances, when imposing the sentence, had properly taken into account all circumstances provided for by Article 65 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, including both mitigating and aggravating factors. The court noted that the convicted person’s active defense strategy and their distortion of the case circumstances during the proceedings indicate a lack of sincere remorse, which precludes the possibility of applying a more lenient sentence. It was also noted that the issue of applying amnesty had already been the subject of separate judicial review, where the application was reasonably denied. Considering the impossibility of retrieving the case files due to the occupation of the territory where the court of first instance was located, the cassation court conducted the review based on available copies of the decisions, while ensuring the convicted person’s right to defense through the engagement of an attorney. In conclusion, the court did not find any essential violations of the criminal procedural law that could serve as grounds for overturning or amending the challenged decisions.

3. The Supreme Court ordered that the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court remain unchanged, and that the cassation appeal of the convicted person be denied.

Case No. 348/1208/16-k dated 08/09/2026

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the legality of the judgment and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of an individual for official negligence (Part 1 of Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) in connection with the incorrect qualification of actions and the lack of proof regarding the amount of damage caused to the state.

2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The appellate court took a formalistic approach to the consideration of the case, failing to provide exhaustive answers to the key arguments of the defense and the prosecution, which constitutes a violation of the requirements of Articles 370 and 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
– The court of cassation emphasized that the amount of material damage in criminal proceedings of this category must be established in a proper manner, in particular, through an expert examination if it is impossible to determine without special knowledge.
– Significant discrepancies were identified in the case between the area of the land plot indicated in the indictment and the factual data, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the calculation of the damage caused.
– The appellate court did not re-examine the evidence, even though the defense and the prosecutor reasonably [indicated…]raised the issue of the necessity to verify expert opinions and examine specialists in order to establish the truth.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that without establishing the exact amount of damages, it is impossible to properly qualify a person’s actions under Article 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, as a mandatory element of this crime is the occurrence of “significant harm.”
– The Court also pointed out the need to consider the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated May 18, 2026, when deciding on the issue of exemption from punishment due to the expiration of limitation periods.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s ruling and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.

Case No. 910/6008/26 dated 09/14/2026
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. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the proper judicial jurisdiction (commercial or administrative) for considering a lawsuit filed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine regarding the cancellation of a state enforcement officer’s resolution on the completion of enforcement proceedings opened on the basis of an AMCU writ.

2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the courts of previous instances erroneously applied a formal approach, defining the dispute as administrative solely due to the participation of the state enforcement officer as a subject of authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion is the nature of the legal relationship, not merely the composition of the parties. Since the dispute concerns the enforcement of an AMCU decision in the field of economic competition protection, it is inextricably linked to the exercise of the Committee’s special powers. The Court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition” and Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Article 20 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine directly refer such cases to the competence of commercial courts. Thus, the special norms of the commercial process have priority over the general provisions of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” in matters concerning the enforcement of AMCU decisions. The first-instance and appellate courts failed to take into account that the verification of the execution of Committee decisions falls within its exclusive competence, which determines the commercial jurisdiction of the dispute.

3. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the Commercial Court of the City of Kyiv to continue proceedings from the stage of deciding on the opening of the case.

Case No. 910/12515/24 dated 09/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s office’s demand to invalidate the results of an auction for the sale of a special permit for subsoil use, as well as to cancel the corresponding purchase and sale agreement and the permit itself.

2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the fact that the grounds for cassation review asserted by the appellant were not confirmed during the consideration of the case. In particular, the court[the Court] concluded that it is necessary to close the cassation proceedings regarding the reference to Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, as the arguments concerning the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court proved to be groundless. Regarding the other arguments of the appellant, the court established that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when assessing the legality of the auction. The Supreme Court confirmed that the procedural violations pointed out by the defendant did not affect the correctness of the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances. Thus, there were no legal grounds for overturning the challenged decisions. The court also took into account the limits of case review in the cassation instance, which do not provide for the reassessment of evidence already examined by the lower courts.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged.

Case No. 922/4021/25 dated 09/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Private Repair and Construction Enterprise “Rembud” to declare unlawful and cancel the decision of the Eastern Interregional Territorial Office of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the cassation appeal does not contain proper justification of the grounds for reviewing the case, as the applicant did not prove the existence of an exceptional legal problem or the necessity to depart from established practice. The court established that the appellant’s arguments essentially boil down to disagreement with the assessment of evidence provided by the courts of lower instances, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance. Regarding the reference to Clause 1 of Part 2 of Article 287 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the court stated that there was no confirmation that the courts of lower instances applied a rule of law without taking into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court. The court also found no grounds for overturning the decisions due to violations of procedural law that would have made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case. As a result, it was recognized that the courts of first and appellate instances correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law when resolving the dispute.

3. The Supreme Court ordered to close the cassation proceedings in the part of one of the grounds, and in the other part — to leave the decisions of the courts of lower instances unchanged, and the cassation appeal — dismissed.

Case No. 902/16/25 dated 09/15/2026
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a contract and the recovery of funds in the amount of 110,782.57 UAH, initiated by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the state.

When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of legality and the assessment of evidence provided by the parties during the consideration of the case in the courts of first and appellate instances. The Supreme Court verified the correctness of the application of substantive and procedural law, finding no violations that could serve as a basis for overturning the challengedof judicial acts. The panel of judges concluded that the arguments of the prosecutor’s cassation appeal do not refute the legality of the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the absence of grounds for satisfying the claims. The Court confirmed that the factual circumstances of the case were established fully and comprehensively, and the legal assessment of the legal relations between the Department of Housing Management, the private enterprise, and the individual was provided correctly. Since the legal grounds for declaring the contract invalid and recovering funds were not proven by proper evidence, the court found no grounds for interfering with the decisions rendered earlier. Thus, the Supreme Court supported the position of the lower courts, leaving their decisions unchanged.

The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s office’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

Case No. 296/8785/16-к of 09/10/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the conviction of two persons for committing a robbery combined with breaking into a dwelling (Part 3 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), based on the cassation appeals of defense attorneys who insisted on the lack of evidence of guilt and the violation of procedural norms.

2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the cassation instance does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish the factual circumstances of the case, as this is the exclusive competence of the lower courts. The Court established that the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court are based on proper and admissible evidence, in particular, the victim’s testimony, records of investigative actions, and expert opinions. Special attention was paid to the qualification of “breaking into a dwelling”: the court confirmed that even if the perpetrators forced the victim to open the door by force, this is considered indirect entry. The panel of judges referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, which clearly explains that such actions fall under the signs of robbery with breaking into a dwelling. The defense’s arguments regarding the investigator’s lack of authority were also refuted, as the case materials confirm the proper procedural appointment of the person. Ultimately, the court concluded that the imposed sentence is fair and corresponds to the gravity of the committed crime.

3. The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the defense attorneys’ cassation appeals unsatisfied.

Case No. 914/2921/25 of 09/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from a foreign company (through its representative office) in favor of the state of over 109 million hryvnias within the framework of the execution of construction and infrastructure development contracts.

2. Upon consideration of this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts committed significant violations of procedural law norms, which made it impossible to establish the factsof circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, the cassation instance pointed to the need for a more thorough examination of evidence regarding the lawfulness of the accrual of the claimed amount of damages or penalties. The Court emphasized that when resolving disputes related to public procurement and the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects, courts are obligated to clearly distinguish the liability of the parties and verify the substantiation of each element of the claims. The importance of adhering to the adversarial principle was also emphasized, as a full analysis of all the defendant’s arguments regarding their fulfillment of contractual obligations was not ensured during the proceedings in the lower instances. Since the court of cassation is deprived of the right to independently establish or consider as proven any circumstances that were not previously established, it could not render a new decision on the merits. Consequently, in order to eliminate the identified shortcomings and ensure fair justice, the case had to be sent for a new trial.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Lviv Region.

Case No. 295/17849/18 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision of the Supreme Court provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, by which the convicted person was found guilty of committing intentional murder and crimes in the field of drug trafficking, due to the defense counsel’s disagreement with the legal qualification, the composition of the court, and the assessment of evidence.

2. The Supreme Court concluded that the courts of lower instances acted within the limits of the law; in particular, the replacement of a judge during the consideration of the case occurred in compliance with the procedure provided for by Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Court noted that the refusal to satisfy the defense’s motions does not indicate bias on the part of the panel, as each decision was reasoned. Regarding the questioning of witnesses who had gone abroad, the Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of using their prior testimonies, as they were obtained in compliance with the principles of immediacy with the participation of the defense. The Court also emphasized that the loss of physical evidence (a knife and a machete) does not automatically render the findings of forensic medical examinations inadmissible, as these are different sources of evidence. Finally, the cassation instance emphasized that it has no right to re-evaluate evidence, and the imposed sentence is fair and corresponds to the gravity of the crimes committed.

3. The Supreme Court left the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the convicted person and their defense counsel was dismissed.

Case No. 334/8800/24 dated 14/09/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the consideration of a motion…the accused’s motion for a change of territorial jurisdiction (transfer of criminal proceedings from one appellate court to another).

2. When rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the provisions of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which clearly defines the exceptional grounds for transferring criminal proceedings from one court to another. The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments of the accused and concluded that they did not contain objective and sufficient grounds provided by law for changing the established jurisdiction. In particular, no convincing evidence was provided regarding the impossibility of hearing the case in the respective appellate court or the existence of circumstances casting doubt on the court’s impartiality. The Court emphasized that the right to change jurisdiction is not absolute and should be applied only in exceptional cases to ensure the effectiveness of justice. Since the applicant failed to prove the existence of objective obstacles to the administration of justice within the jurisdiction established by law, there were no grounds for granting the motion. Thus, the Court acted within its discretionary powers aimed at upholding the principle of a competent court.

3. The Supreme Court ruled to deny the accused’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings to another appellate court.

Case No. 991/2646/26 dated 09/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a detailed analysis for your materials:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Criminal proceedings regarding the accusation of a judge of committing a corruption crime — receiving an unlawful benefit in the amount of 2,000 USD for rendering a knowingly unjust acquittal (Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
– The Court established that the accused, using his official position, requested a bribe and received it in two installments, which is confirmed by the results of covert investigative (search) actions, audio and video recordings, as well as witness testimony.
– The Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding provocation of the crime, as the initiative to receive an unlawful benefit came exclusively from the judge himself, and law enforcement agencies merely documented a pre-formed criminal intent.
– The Court critically assessed the behavior of the accused during the trial, in particular his attempts to evade justice through artificial mobilization into the Armed Forces of Ukraine without notifying the command about the existence of the criminal proceedings.
– The Court emphasized the systemic nature of the judge’s actions, who not only demanded funds but also personally consulted the defendant on the defense strategy, recommended “his own” lawyers, and edited texts of procedural documents.
– When sentencing, the Court took into account the high public danger of corruption in the judiciary, which undermines trust in the state; therefore, it rejected the possibility of imposing the minimum…punishment or exemption from serving it.
– The court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence is relevant, admissible, and sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. **Court Decision:** The court found the accused guilty of committing the crime provided for in Part 3 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property and deprivation of the right to hold positions related to the administration of justice for a term of 3 years.

Case No. 908/2131/24 of 09/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt, specifically 3% per annum accrued by PJSC “Ukrenergo” against JSC “DTEK Dniproenergo” for the breach of monetary obligations.

2. The court of cassation instance concluded that the lower courts did not fully investigate the circumstances relevant to the correct calculation of the 3% per annum. Specifically, the courts did not provide a proper assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the legitimacy of the accrual period and the calculation base for these amounts in the context of the contract terms and legislative requirements. The Supreme Court pointed to a violation of procedural law, as the courts did not establish the factual circumstances that would allow for a reasoned determination of the amount of sanctions. Since the court of cassation is deprived of the right to independently establish or consider as proven circumstances that were not established in the decision, it was forced to set aside the judicial acts in this part. Therefore, to rectify the admitted violations and fully clarify all legal facts, the case was remanded for a new trial to the court of first instance.

3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of 3% per annum, and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region.

Case No. 509/114/23 of 09/10/2026
Case No. 904/4326/24 of 09/10/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis of the case:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** The claimant attempted, pursuant to Article 336 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, to levy execution on funds held in the debtor’s bank account, claiming that these funds actually belonged to him as a payment services user.

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate instance, noting that Article 336 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine is a special mechanism for the enforcement of court decisions, which cannot be used to resolve a dispute over the ownership of funds. The court emphasized that if the funds belong to the claimant, the application of this procedural tool is erroneous, as it is intended for the recovery of debt from third parties, not for the return of one’s own funds. The court also confirmed the bank’s right to appellate appeal.[…], since the operative part of the first-instance court ruling directly imposed on the bank an obligation to perform actions regarding the transfer of funds, which directly affected its interests. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the improper representation of the bank, indicating that the issue of the representative’s authority had been verified upon the opening of appellate proceedings. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the court is not obliged to provide a detailed response to every argument of a party if the main issues affecting the outcome have been resolved. Ultimately, the cassation instance concluded that the challenged decision of the appellate court is lawful and well-founded.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.

Case No. 910/16578/25 dated 09/14/2026
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 an appellate court ruling on the application of provisional measures by means of attachment of the defendant’s funds.

2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the provision of a claim is an exceptional measure applied only when there are proven risks that failure to take such actions will complicate or make it impossible to enforce a future court decision. The court stressed that the burden of proving such risks lies solely with the plaintiff, who must provide proper evidence of the defendant’s bad faith or actions aimed at evading the fulfillment of obligations. In this case, the plaintiff limited themselves to mere assumptions and references to the existence of other court cases, which, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, is not a sufficient basis for the attachment of accounts. The appellate court made an error by failing to examine the proportionality of the chosen provisional measure with the stated claims and by failing to establish a real threat to the plaintiff’s property interests. The Supreme Court pointed out that the mere fact of having debts to other counterparties does not automatically indicate the defendant’s intention to evade the fulfillment of a decision in a specific dispute. Thus, the decision on the attachment of funds was deemed unfounded and in violation of procedural standards regarding the evaluation of evidence.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the defendant’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and adopted a new decision denying the application for provisional measures.

Case No. 525/1384/24 dated 09/14/2026
The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of an appellate court judgment convicting a person for committing theft under martial law (Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).

During the cassation review, the Supreme Court verified the appellate court’s compliance with substantive and procedural law when rendering the decision. The panel of judges reached the conclusionfinding that the appellate court properly examined all evidence provided by the prosecution and the defense and gave it an appropriate legal assessment. The court did not establish any significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law that could be grounds for the cancellation or amendment of the contested judgment. The arguments of the convicted person, set forth in the cassation appeal, were found to be unsubstantiated and failing to refute the court’s conclusions regarding the proof of the person’s guilt. The court confirmed that the qualification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed punishment corresponds to the degree of gravity of the committed crime and the identity of the offender. Thus, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interfering with the decision of the appellate instance.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Poltava Court of Appeal, leaving the cassation appeal of the convicted person unsatisfied.

Case No. 990/269/26 dated 09/14/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 990/269/26:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the High Council of Justice’s decision to extend the term of temporary suspension of a judge from the administration of justice in connection with criminal prosecution.

2. The court proceeded from the fact that the High Council of Justice (HCJ) acted within the scope of its discretionary powers, having duly substantiated the necessity of extending the suspension by the existence of objective risks. The court emphasized that at the stage of extending the suspension, the HCJ does not re-evaluate the initial decision but only verifies whether the circumstances that formed the basis for such a measure continue to exist. It was established that the suspicion of committing a serious corruption crime objectively creates a threat to the authority of the judiciary and public trust, which is incompatible with the performance of a judge’s functions. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding procedural violations, in particular concerning the signing of the decision, noting that the presence of technically hidden signatures in a copy does not refute their existence in the original. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the guarantees of judicial independence are not absolute and do not prevent the state from responding to circumstances that call a judge’s integrity into question. Ultimately, the court concluded that the HCJ’s decision meets the requirements of the law, contains proper motivation, and was adopted by a competent composition of the body.

3. The Supreme Court decided to deny the claims of PERSON_1 in their entirety.

Case No. 904/254/26 dated 09/01/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A co-owner of an apartment filed a lawsuit against the ОСББ (Association of Co-owners of a Multiapartment Building) to compel the provision of copies of documents regarding the financial and economic activities of the association for the purpose of exercising the right to participate in the management of the building.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court confirmed that the right of a co-owner to receiveinformation on the activities of the Condominium (OSBB) is fundamental and enshrined in the relevant legislation.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the Condominium is obliged to provide access to documents, however, with the mandatory redaction of personal data of other persons (confidential information), guided by the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
* The Court rejected the Condominium’s arguments regarding the appellate court’s exceeding of the scope of the claims, noting that providing an opportunity to review documents instead of issuing certified copies does not constitute a change in the subject matter of the claim, but is a method of protecting a violated right.
* At the same time, the Court deemed the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the provision of the contract with the company “Teplo KR” premature, since the Condominium denies the existence of such a document, and the court did not verify these circumstances.
* The Court also identified a significant procedural violation: a discrepancy between the amount of legal expenses announced in the courtroom (UAH 13) and the amount specified in the written text of the resolution (UAH 13,000).
* Due to these procedural errors and unexamined facts regarding the availability of documents, the case was remanded for a new trial in the part concerning these claims.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the Condominium, set aside the resolution of the appellate court in the part concerning the provision of the contract with “Teplo KR” and the recovery of legal expenses, remanding the case in this part for a new trial, and upheld the decision in the remaining part.

Case No. 915/1189/24 dated 02/09/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 915/1189/24:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor filed a lawsuit in the interests of the state with a demand to remove obstacles in the use of a forest fund land plot located in the coastal protective strip by canceling decisions on its transfer into private ownership, declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid, and obliging the return of the land to the state.

2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court committed significant procedural violations by failing to provide a proper assessment of all claims and failing to provide reasons for rejecting the prosecutor’s arguments. The appellate court groundlessly dismissed the lawsuit, citing the need for additional establishment of the boundaries of the plot overlap, although these facts had already been established by the court of first instance. Regarding the claim for invalidating the certificate for the gatehouse building, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that, since the object has been effectively destroyed, the proper method of protection is the cancellation of the state registration of ownership rights and the closing of the corresponding section of the registry, rather than invalidating the certificate. At the same time, regarding the main claims concerning the return of the land plot, the appellate court did not resolve the dispute on its merits, which makes it impossible to verify the legality of its conclusions. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that a new trial in the appellate instance is necessary for a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case.3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, set aside the appellate court’s ruling in the part concerning the refusal to satisfy the primary claims, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court, while upholding the decision only in the part regarding the refusal to invalidate the building certificate.

Case No. 712/1983/22 dated 08/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown of this case:

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the cassation review is the legality of the conviction of an individual under Part 3 of Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (leaving in danger, which caused the death of a young child) and the lawfulness of the acquittal of another individual accused of complicity in the same crime.

**2. Arguments of the Court**
* The Supreme Court confirmed that the convicted person was duly notified of the child’s condition and had a real opportunity to call for help but demonstrated criminal inaction, which led to tragic consequences.
* The Court emphasized that for the purposes of classification under Article 135 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, it is irrelevant whether timely assistance could have saved the child’s life, as the very act of evading the duty to care for a helpless person constitutes a completed crime.
* Regarding the acquitted person, the Court established that the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence of his residence at the scene of the incident and the existence of a legal duty to care for the child, which precludes his liability under this article.
* The Court rejected the convicted person’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence (specifically, the results of the search and inspection), confirming that all investigative actions were conducted in compliance with procedural rules and with the necessary authorizations.
* Regarding the sentencing, the appellate court had the authority to mitigate the sentence, taking into account the convicted person’s critical attitude toward her behavior and the absence of aggravating circumstances, which complies with the principles of sentencing individualization.
* The Supreme Court also emphasized that it has no authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new facts, but only reviews the correctness of the application of legal norms by lower courts.
* All of the convicted person’s claims regarding psychological pressure, language barriers, or the falsification of case materials were deemed baseless and unsupported by the case records.

**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, dismissing the cassation appeals of the convicted person and the prosecutor.

Case No. 461/7271/20 dated 07/09/2026
Here is the analysis of this court decision:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s return of an individual’s application for the review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances.

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court systematically ignores the mandatory instructions of the cassation instance, ngiven during previous cancellations of similar rulings in the same case. The Court emphasized that a decision rendered as a result of a review based on newly discovered circumstances is subject to appeal in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code for appealing the decision whose review the applicant is initiating. It was also emphasized that the applicant is the direct subject of the appeal regarding the inaction of the prosecutor’s office and, therefore, has the right to file the corresponding application. The court of appeal, contrary to the requirements of Article 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, failed to comply with the instructions of the Supreme Court, which constitutes a significant violation of procedural law. As a result, the court of appeal again made an error that calls into question the legality and validity of its decision. The Supreme Court once again emphasized the need to adhere to the principle of legal certainty and the binding nature of instructions issued by a higher court.

3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, cancelled the ruling of the court of appeal, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.

Case No. 911/2167/25 dated 09/09/2026
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:** Recognition as illegal the decision on the disqualification of the winner of land auctions, recognition of the conclusion of a sublease agreement, and invalidation of a sublease agreement concluded with another person.

2. **Court arguments:**
– The court determined that Article 137 of the Land Code of Ukraine is a universal rule that establishes a uniform procedure for the preparation and conduct of land auctions for all types of proprietary rights to land, including lease and sublease.
– The obligation to submit documents confirming the citizenship of shareholders and the ownership structure is imperative for all bidders regarding agricultural land, regardless of whether it concerns the sale of a plot or its transfer for use.
– The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in approving the list of documents in Resolution No. 1013, acted strictly within the limits of the powers delegated to it by law; therefore, the plaintiff’s reference to the Government exceeding its powers is unfounded.
– Letters from ministries and departments (in particular, the State Geocadastre) are merely advisory in nature and cannot cancel or modify the imperative requirements of the law regarding the mandatory submission of a complete package of documents.
– Since the plaintiff did not provide the documents required by law, the auction organizer was obliged to disqualify him, which excludes the possibility of recognizing a sublease agreement as concluded with such a participant.
– The court also emphasized that the subsequent winner of the auction is a bona fide purchaser, as they acted within the procedure, the results of which were not challenged, and the right to the land plot was duly registered.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of lower instances [unchanged].— unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the plaintiff’s disqualification due to the failure to submit mandatory documents.

Case No. 910/10368/25 dated 09/09/2026
Below is a detailed analysis of the court decision in Case No. 910/10368/25:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** JSC “Ukrnafta” attempted to challenge an order of the local administration and cancel the state registration of a plot of forestry land, on which the plaintiff’s wells are located, due to the creation of obstacles to their operation.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The court proceeded from the premise that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff — the cancellation of the order and entries in the registers — is ineffective, as it does not restore the right to use the land for oil extraction. The Supreme Court emphasized that JSC “Ukrnafta” is not the owner of the disputed land plot; therefore, a vindication claim (recovery of property) does not apply in this case. At the same time, the company’s ownership of the wells and a special permit for subsoil use do not override the state’s or the forestry enterprise’s right to possess the land. The court clarified that a special and effective mechanism for oil and gas extraction companies in such situations is the establishment of a land easement. Such an easement allows for the lawful use of another’s plot for the maintenance of wells without changing its designated purpose. Since the plaintiff chose an improper method of protection, the court denied the claim, finding no grounds to interfere with the ownership right to the entire forest land area of 297 hectares.

3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s resolution, which denied the plaintiff’s claims.

Case No. 910/3831/26 dated 02/09/2026
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 of the Dispute:** The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the commercial court’s refusal to open proceedings on a claim for the recovery of funds (penalty) from a foreign entity — the Energy Community Secretariat, which was not a party to the contract and was not subject to the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court supported the position of the lower courts, emphasizing that identifying the proper defendant is key to opening proceedings. The court established that the Energy Community Secretariat did not sign the contract from which the dispute arose and did not consent to the consideration of cases in the courts of Ukraine. It was also confirmed that the defendant lacks property, branches, or representative offices on the territory of our state, which makes it impossible to establish territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s references to practice regarding arbitration clauses, as the issue of arbitration did not arise at all in this case. Regarding the immunity of the international organization, the court noted that this pthe issue was not decisive, as the refusal was based on the absence of a contractual nexus to the jurisdiction of Ukraine. Ultimately, the cassation instance stated that the courts of lower instances had correctly applied the norms of procedural law, and the appellant’s arguments regarding the failure to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court proved groundless.

3. **Court Decision:** 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. 914/2419/25 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Appealing the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings due to the expiration of the deadline for appealing the decision of the court of first instance in a case regarding the collection of a penalty under a franchise agreement.

2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court took a formalistic approach to the issue of restoring the deadline, without properly examining the reasons for the defendant’s failure to receive postal correspondence. The court of first instance received information from “Ukrposhta” regarding the impossibility of delivering the letter due to a lack of access to the building entrance; however, the appellate court did not give this fact proper assessment in the context of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access to a court is not absolute, but the court is obligated to verify the circumstances that prevented a party from learning about the decision in a timely manner. The appellate court erroneously concluded that the defendant was aware of the proceedings solely due to their own passivity. Therefore, the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the absence of valid reasons for restoring the deadline was deemed premature. The court of cassation emphasized that the evaluation of evidence must be comprehensive and objective, and not based solely on assumptions about the “will” of a party.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case to the same court for further proceedings from the stage of resolving the issue of initiating appellate proceedings.

Case No. 911/3300/25 dated 09/15/2026
The subject of the dispute is a prosecutor’s claim to invalidate certain provisions of a construction contract and to recover funds from the contractor that the prosecutor’s office considered to have been received without legal basis.

When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the principle of mandatory compliance with the terms of a commercial contract concluded between business entities. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, having unjustifiably interfered in the contractual relations of the parties. Specifically, it was established that the contractor had fulfilled its obligations in a proper manner, and the pricing in the contract complied with the requirements of the legislation at the time of its conclusion. The court emphasized that the prThe prosecutor failed to prove the existence of grounds for declaring the contract provisions invalid, as there is no evidence of a violation of public policy or state interests. Furthermore, it was taken into account that the groundless recovery of funds from the contractor for works actually performed violates the balance of the parties’ interests and the principles of business turnover. Consequently, the cassation appeal was granted, and the previous court decisions were set aside.

The Supreme Court rendered a new decision, in which it fully denied the satisfaction of the prosecutor’s office’s claims and imposed on it the obligation to reimburse the defendant for legal costs.

Case No. 289/1570/20 dated 09/08/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Verification of the legality of the conviction of a person under Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which caused moderate bodily injuries to the victim) and the lawfulness of release from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the driver, PERSON_7, violated a number of Traffic Rules (in particular, regarding maneuvering and yielding the right of way), which is in a direct causal link with the traffic accident.
* The panel of judges confirmed that the expert reports are proper and admissible evidence, as they are based on a full spectrum of initial data, unlike the report provided by the defense.
* The court clarified that although the reference to an excerpt from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations as proof of guilt is a procedural error, it is not a substantial violation that affects the legality of the verdict.
* Regarding the form of the decision, the court noted that the appellate court is obliged to render a verdict only in cases clearly defined by Art. 420 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in other cases, it may be limited to a ruling.
* Since the appellate court only corrected the error of the first instance regarding the classification of the release from liability (replacing release from criminal liability with release from punishment), this did not worsen the position of the convicted person.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof was met in this case, and the defense’s arguments about the absence of the elements of a crime are an attempt to re-evaluate the evidence, which goes beyond the powers of the cassation instance.

3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court, and denied the satisfaction of the defense attorney’s cassation appeal.

Case No. 607/10245/22 dated 09/08/2026
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:** Review of the legality of the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the conviction of a person under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (violation of traffic safety rules, which caused the death of several persons) in connection with the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibilityof evidence and the disproportion of the imposed sentence.

2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the cassation instance does not have the authority to reassess the factual circumstances of the case, but only reviews the correctness of the application of legal norms.
– The Court recognized the evidentiary basis (inspection reports, findings of auto-technical and forensic medical examinations) as relevant and admissible, rejecting the defense’s arguments regarding their inadmissibility due to alleged violations of the procedure for engaging experts.
– The panel of judges confirmed that the appellate court had the right to evaluate evidence that was directly examined by the court of first instance, without violating the principle of directness of judicial proceedings.
– The Court noted that the appellate instance lawfully refused to re-examine evidence, as the defense did not provide substantiated grounds indicating that the evidence had been incompletely examined by the court of first instance.
– Regarding the sentence, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s position on imposing a 5-year prison term, acknowledging this sentence as fair and sufficient, while upholding the refusal to apply Article 75 of the Criminal Code (suspension of serving a sentence with a probation period) due to the gravity of the consequences of the crime.
– The Court also indicated that the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights were met, as the appellate court provided reasoned responses to the key arguments of the defense, despite the absence of a detailed response to every individual argument.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court unchanged, and dismissed the cassation appeals of the convicted person and their defense counsel.

**Case No. 320/5031/23 dated 15/09/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:

1. **Subject of the Dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the refusal by the Main Directorate of the National Guard of Ukraine to recalculate the monetary allowance of a military serviceman, taking into account the current subsistence minimum and the corresponding recalculation of payments due upon discharge.

2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court established that after the court annulled the amendments to clause 4 of Resolution No. 704, the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established as of January 1 of the respective calendar year, rather than a fixed amount of 1762 UAH, must be applied for the calculation of official salaries.
* The Supreme Court confirmed that National Guard servicemen are entitled to such a recalculation, as they fall under the scope of Resolution No. 704, and departmental orders of the Ministry of Internal Affairs only detail this procedure.
* The Court departed from previous practice regarding the application of time limits for filing claims with the court, noting that amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine (which limited the filing period to 3 months) do not have retroactive effect.
* The Court clarified that legal relations that arose before July 19, 2022, are regulated by the version of Article 233 of the Labor Code, which did not limit the period for filing claims with the courts.with claims for the recovery of amounts due upon dismissal.
* Therefore, the appellate court erroneously left the claims without consideration due to an alleged expiration of the statute of limitations, since the rule of no time limits applied to the disputed legal relations.
* The court concluded that the decision of the court of first instance was lawful, and the appellate court had rescinded it without grounds.

3. **Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, vacated the ruling of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims had been satisfied.

Case No. 213/3121/25 dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision of the Supreme Court. Here is a detailed analysis of the case:

**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is a claim for the recovery from the employer (JSC “Pivdenny Mining and Processing Plant”) of monetary compensation for moral damages caused by the death of an employee in the workplace, in the amount of 2,000,000 UAH for each, in favor of her husband and minor child.

**2. Court Arguments**
* The court established that the employee’s death occurred during the performance of her labor duties, which is confirmed by the special investigation report in form H-1/P, and therefore, the employer’s liability for moral damages is justified.
* When determining the amount of compensation, the court took into account a combination of factors: both the fault of the enterprise (failure of the foreman to perform duties) and the contributory negligence of the deceased herself, who violated occupational safety instructions by entering behind a protective fence without stopping the conveyor.
* The court took a critical view of the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the cause of death, relying on the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, which indicated sudden death as a result of thrombosis, and not directly from the injuries sustained at the time of the incident.
* The plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the need for re-evaluation of evidence (in particular, specialist report No. 116) were rejected, as the courts of lower instances had already provided them with a proper assessment, and the re-evaluation of evidence is not within the authority of the cassation instance.
* The court emphasized that the amount of moral damages must be proportionate to the suffering, but does not necessarily have to correspond to the amount claimed by the plaintiff if it is justified in view of the principles of reasonableness and fairness.
* The court also confirmed that amounts of compensation for damage to life and health, recovered by a court decision, are not subject to personal income tax.
* The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had correctly applied the norms of substantive law, and the appellants’ arguments were effectively aimed at a re-evaluation of established facts, which is not grounds for overturning the decisions.

**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, leaving the amounts of compensation (300,000 UAH to the husband and 500,000 UAH to the child) unchanged.

139771610″>Case No. 520/2983/22 dated 09/14/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a detailed analysis:

1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging by the taxpayer of the tax authority’s decisions on the assessment of tax on real estate other than land, due to disagreement with the tax rates applied to non-residential real estate objects.

2. Key arguments of the court:
* The court established that the tax authority unlawfully applied a 1% rate to industrial buildings in Kharkiv solely on the basis of the absence of their type detailing in the State Register, ignoring technical documentation.
* The court emphasized that for the determination of the tax rate, the decisive factor is the actual functional purpose of the object, which is confirmed by technical passports and other evidence, rather than formal entries in the Register alone.
* Regarding objects in the urban-type settlement of Nova Vodolaha, the court supported the position of the tax authority, noting that the presence of other premises (offices, utility rooms, etc.) in a building formally named a “garage” excludes the possibility of applying a zero tax rate.
* The court took into account the legal position set forth in another case concerning the same taxpayer and object, confirming that “garage” in this instance is merely a name, not a characteristic that entitles one to a benefit.
* The court emphasized that the obligation to correctly determine the type of object and the corresponding tax rate lies with the controlling authority; however, the taxpayer also has the right to provide evidence to clarify this data.
* As a result, the court concluded that a rate of 0.1% (as for “other buildings”) should be applied to industrial buildings in Kharkiv, rather than 1%, while regarding the objects in Nova Vodolaha, the 0.75% rate was applied lawfully.

3. Court decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of both parties and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.

Case No. 800/376/13 dated 09/14/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:

1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dated May 23, 2013, No. 311-VII regarding the dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of judge for violation of the oath.

2. The court was guided by the fact that the basis for the dismissal of the judge by the parliament was the submission of the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which, at the time of the case consideration, had already been recognized as unlawful and canceled by another decision of the Supreme Court. Since the legal basis for the adoption of the challenged Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada (the HCJ submission) lost its validity due to being recognized as illegal, the Resolution itself in the part regarding the plaintiff’s dismissal is also subject to cancellation. The court took into account the prejudicial significance of the circumstances established in previous court decisions that have entered into legal force. Furthermore, the court took into account the position of the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Ukraine, where it was established that the rights of judges were violated during the procedure of their dismissal for “violation of the oath.” The SupremThe Supreme Court emphasized that since the primary act (the decision of the High Council of Justice) was recognized as unlawful, the act derived from it (the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine) cannot remain in effect. Thus, the court concluded that it is necessary to restore the violated rights of the plaintiff by canceling the challenged Resolution.

3. The court decided to fully satisfy the claims of PERSON_1, recognizing as unlawful and canceling the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine No. 311-VII in the part concerning the dismissal of the plaintiff from the position of a judge.

Case No. 358/1014/24 dated 08/25/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many 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:** Establishing the fact of kinship between the plaintiff and a deceased person for the purpose of processing an inheritance by law.

2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases concerning the establishment of the fact of kinship for inheritance purposes, the correct determination of the circle of defendants is critically important. The courts of lower instances did not establish the full circle of the deceased’s heirs, in particular, they did not verify whether other persons who potentially have the right to the inheritance had accepted it. Since the determination of the proper defendant depends on the composition of the heirs, the court cannot consider the lawsuit on its merits without involving all interested parties. The plaintiff has the right to judicial protection, however, courts should not be limited to a formal refusal due to a lack of evidence without clarifying who exactly is the proper defendant in the case. Since the courts did not establish the actual circumstances regarding the circle of heirs and did not verify the existence of other persons who may claim the property, the conclusions to refuse the lawsuit were recognized as premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that without establishing these circumstances, it is impossible to resolve the dispute on its merits; therefore, the case must be remanded for a new trial.

3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court overturned 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. 520/17191/23 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** A serviceman appealed to the court with a demand to recognize as unlawful the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-payment of additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 UAH for the period from July to December 2022 and to compel such payment.

2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the right to receive additional remuneration in the amount of 100,000 UAH in accordance with Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168 does not arise automatically solely due to the serviceman’s presence in a combat zone.
* The key criterion for such payment is direct participation in combat operations or the performance of special combat missions, which must be confirmed by relevant documents (combat orders, logscombat operations, reports).
* For service members of anti-aircraft missile troops, such “direct participation” is recognized specifically as the performance of tasks related to the fire engagement of aerial targets.
* The court noted that the payment must be made in proportion to the time of actual performance of such tasks (based on the days of missile launches), and not for the entire period of stay in a combat zone or on combat duty.
* The appellate court erred by failing to establish the specific dates and episodes of fire engagement for which the plaintiff is entitled to payment, limiting itself only to general conclusions.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it does not have the authority to independently examine evidence and establish factual circumstances; therefore, the case requires further review.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance to establish the specific facts of the plaintiff’s performance of combat missions.

Case No. 389/1122/24 dated 09/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:

1. The subject of the dispute was the determination of an additional period for filing an application for acceptance of an inheritance under a will due to the expiration of the six-month term established by law.

2. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, based on the fact that the courts had unlawfully recognized the reasons for missing the deadline as valid. The Court emphasized that a successor’s lack of awareness regarding the death of the testator is not, in itself, an objective and insurmountable obstacle if the successor, knowing of the existence of a will in their favor, did not take steps to maintain contact with the testator. The courts of first and appellate instances erroneously interpreted the notary’s duty to search for successors as grounds for extending the deadline, even though the plaintiff did not even cite the notary’s inaction in the statement of claim. It was also emphasized that actual use of a land plot does not replace the legal act of accepting an inheritance by filing an application. The Supreme Court pointed out that groundlessly granting an additional period violates the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law. In conclusion, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of objective and substantial difficulties that would have made a timely application to a notary impossible.

3. The Supreme Court rendered a new decision, which fully denied the satisfaction of the claim for the determination of an additional period for the acceptance of an inheritance.

Case No. 826/11195/16 dated 15/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief analysis for your material:

1. **Subject of the dispute:** Challenging the lawfulness of the accrual of a penalty by the tax authority for violations of settlement deadlines in the sphere of foreign economic activity (FEA) due to the untimely receipt of foreign currency proceeds.

2. **Argumentsof the court:
– The court established that the date of receipt of foreign currency proceeds is the moment of their crediting to the bank’s distribution account, rather than the enterprise’s current account, as the distribution account serves as the primary transit account for such transactions.
– Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the timely crediting of funds to the distribution account, the accrual of a penalty for late payment is well-founded.
– The court emphasized that the only legal ground for exemption from the payment of such a penalty is the existence of a court decision satisfying a resident’s claim against a non-resident for the recovery of debt, which was absent in this case.
– It was also taken into account that the plaintiff did not provide documents regarding force majeure circumstances or conclusions from the Ministry of Economy concerning the extension of statutory settlement deadlines.
– The appellate court rightfully recalculated the amount of the penalty based on available evidence, partially revoking the tax notice-decision regarding the excessively accrued amounts.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the appellate court correctly applied the substantive legal norms and did not commit procedural violations that could have affected the outcome of the case.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling, by which the claim was only partially satisfied.

Case No. 560/9332/22 dated 14/09/2026
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:** Challenging by a taxpayer of a tax notice-decision on the increase of a tax liability for corporate income tax due to additional assessments related to repair expenses for leased premises, expenses for services provided by individual entrepreneurs (FOP), and adjustments to the financial result from transactions with non-residents.

2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts did not fulfill the instructions provided during the previous overturning of the decisions, in particular regarding the necessity of determining the economic result of the repair works. The court noted that the classification of works as “capital repair” under construction standards is not in itself automatic proof of “improvement” of an asset that leads to an increase in future economic benefits. Regarding expenses for services provided by individual entrepreneurs, the court pointed to the necessity of examining the totality of primary documents (certificates and cost estimates) to confirm the reality and cost of consumed resources, rather than merely the formal existence of documents. At the same time, the Court supported the position of the appellate instance regarding the lack of grounds for a 30-percent adjustment of the financial result from transactions with non-residents, as the controlling authority did not refute the taxpayer’s evidence regarding the compliance of prices with the “arm’s length” principle. The Court stressed that the burden of proving the lawfulness of a tax notice-decision lies with the tax authority, which failed to provide [evidence] to…proper evidence to refute the taxpayer’s position. Consequently, due to insufficient examination of the circumstances regarding repairs and services provided by a private entrepreneur (FOP), the case was remanded in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the assessment of expenses for repairs and services provided by a private entrepreneur (along with the apportionment of legal costs), and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance, while upholding the appellate court’s judgment in all other respects.

Case No. 300/382/22 dated 09/14/2026
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 carrying out construction works (reconstruction) without permits and the demand of the State Architectural and Construction Control (DABK) body for the demolition of an unauthorized extension to non-residential premises.

2. **Court Arguments:**
* The court established that increasing the floor area of the premises from 26.1 sq. m to 71.6 sq. m as a result of attaching new areas constitutes reconstruction rather than capital repair, which requires the availability of appropriate permits.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for distinguishing between reconstruction and repair is the change in the geometric dimensions of the object; therefore, any unauthorized increase in area is automatically classified as reconstruction.
* The court noted that the state registration of property rights to an unauthorized construction does not legalize it and does not deprive the DABK body of the right to demand the demolition of such construction.
* Regarding the procedural issue, the court pointed out that the absence of a party’s representative at the appellate court hearing is not an unconditional ground for overturning the decision, provided the party had the opportunity to set out their position in writing and the court considered the case on its merits.
* The court found the chosen method of protection—demolishing only the unauthorized part of the construction and restoring the object to its previous state—to be a commensurate and proportional interference with the right of ownership.
* The court emphasized that failure to comply with an order to eliminate violations without valid reasons indicates a person’s unwillingness to address the consequences of unauthorized construction, which provides legal grounds for compulsory demolition.

3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, confirming the legality of the demand to demolish the unauthorized part of the premises.

Case No. 2-2263/10 dated 08/19/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:

1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the lower courts’ refusal to issue a duplicate writ of execution and to reinstate the time limit for its submission for enforcement.

2. The Supreme Court pointed out that the courts of first