Case No. 367/4908/20 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 brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of funds from a bank placed on the client’s card and deposit accounts, which were blocked following the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the fact of the existence of funds in the plaintiff’s accounts is confirmed by a bank certificate and is not disputed by the respondent itself.
– A key point was the application of Article 268 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which the statute of limitations does not apply to a depositor’s claims against a bank for the withdrawal of a deposit.
– The court rejected the bank’s arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, as the legal relationship between the parties regarding card accounts had not been terminated, and the funds continue to remain at the disposal of the bank.
– Regarding claims for the recovery of 3% per annum under the Law “On Consumer Protection,” the court noted that these norms are not applicable, as the contractual deposit relationship had been terminated.
– The court also denied the recovery of interest on one of the deposits due to the lack of evidence in the case file regarding the terms of their accrual.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the bank’s arguments amount to a reassessment of evidence, which is outside the powers of the cassation instance; therefore, the decisions of the lower courts were recognized as lawful.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “PrivatBank,” and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 911/2486/25 dated 09/15/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from PJSC “Centrenergo” in favor of LLC “Ukrainian Banking Consulting” and an individual, which includes inflation-related losses in the amount of over 2.5 million UAH.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the lower instances made errors in the application of substantive law during the calculation and recovery of inflation-related losses. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal nature of inflationary charges and established that there were no grounds for their recovery in the amount declared by the plaintiff. The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the methodology for calculating inflation-related losses, which must be based on official data from the State Statistics Service and relevant provisions of the legislation. The arguments of the appellant regarding the unfounded nature of imposing financial obligations that were not confirmed by proper evidence in terms of calculation were also taken into account. As a result of the case review, the court concluded that the previous court decisions in this part do not meet the requirements of legality and validity. Thus, the cassation instance corrected the error made by the lower courts, ensuring the correct application of the norms of law to the disputed legal relations.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of PJSC “Centrenergo” and overturned the decisions of the lower courts in the part regardingrecovery of inflationary losses and rendered a new decision to refuse to satisfy the claim in this part.
Case No. 404/1684/15-ts dated 08/25/2026
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:** Consideration of a state executor’s application for the issuance of a duplicate of a writ of execution in connection with its loss while in the process of enforcement.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court established that the writ of execution was indeed lost, and the state executor provided sufficient evidence of the impossibility of its further use.
– The key factor was compliance with the time limit for submitting the document for enforcement: since the enforcement proceedings had been opened and the enforcement document was subsequently returned to the claimant, the period for submission was interrupted.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that under martial law, the time limits for submitting enforcement documents for execution are interrupted, which excludes the possibility of them being missed by the claimant.
– The court rejected the debtor’s arguments regarding abuse of rights, as the debtor did not challenge the executor’s actions or omissions during the entire period the writ was in the process of enforcement.
– Regarding procedural violations, the court noted that the debtor had been duly notified of the case proceedings at the address he himself had provided earlier; therefore, his non-appearance did not prevent the consideration of the application.
– The court confirmed that the only conditions for issuing a duplicate are the fact of the loss of the original and the filing of an application within the time limit for submission for execution, which were fully complied with in this case.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, recognizing them as lawful and well-founded.
Case No. 911/3440/25 dated 09/16/2026
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:** The plaintiff sought to compel a neighbor, who is an entrepreneur, to remove obstacles to the use of a land plot, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, arose due to the cluttering of the plot with construction debris and materials during the defendant’s renovation works.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The court concluded that the plaintiff had not provided proper and admissible evidence confirming the link between the defendant’s activities and the presence of debris on the plot. Although the fact of the land being cluttered was established, the plaintiff was unable to prove that it was specifically the defendant or his employees who placed these materials there. The court emphasized that the mere fact that the defendant was conducting construction work in the vicinity does not create an automatic presumption of his guilt. It was also noted that the defendant’s failure to file a statement of defense does not constitute an admission of the claims, as the burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff. Regarding the refusal of the appeal to postpone the consideration of the case, the court recognized it as lawful, since the representativethe plaintiff failed to provide convincing evidence of their engagement in another proceeding. Ultimately, the court emphasized that to satisfy a negatory action, it is insufficient to merely state the fact of a violation; it is necessary to clearly prove the involvement of a specific person in said violation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged and dismissed the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 910/15830/24 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the Supreme Court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The prosecutor appealed to the court in the interests of the Kyiv City Council with a demand to remove obstacles in the use of a land plot by demolishing unauthorized real estate objects and terminating the right of ownership to them, as the defendant had erected buildings on municipal land without proper permits.
2. **Court Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal regime of unauthorized construction, defined by Article 376 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, is imperative, and the registration of ownership rights to such objects does not legitimize them if the construction was carried out on someone else’s land plot without the owner’s permission. The court emphasized that the appropriate method of protecting the land owner’s rights in such cases is specifically a demand for demolition, rather than the cancellation of entries in registries, since only demolition restores the state of unity of the legal fate of the land and the real estate. The Court of Appeal mistakenly focused on the “proportionality” of the interference without properly assessing the fact that the defendant had entered inaccurate data into the declaration of readiness of the object for operation. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not investigate the good faith of the defendant’s actions, who effectively masked the unauthorized construction, and did not assess all evidence in its entirety. The court also noted that applying to authorities regarding land lease does not grant the right to build until the relevant decision on the transfer of the plot is adopted. As a result, the Court of Appeal did not fulfill the requirements for a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case, which constitutes a procedural violation.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Commercial Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the same court of appellate instance.
Case No. 914/209/25 dated 09/08/2026
Greetings. As a specialist with 15 years of experience in commercial litigation and bankruptcy proceedings, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The legality of transitioning to the liquidation procedure in the bankruptcy case of the Housing Cooperative “ZhBK ‘Zlahoda'” in the absence of a proper analysis of the debtor’s financial condition and while the debtor possessed assets.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a liquidation decision cannot be based solely on a motion by the creditors’ committee, as the court is obligated to independentlyto verify the presence of signs of insolvency.
– The Court established that the property administrator failed to conduct a proper analysis of the debtor’s financial and economic state, which constitutes a gross violation of the requirements of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (CUBP).
– It was emphasized that the existence of real estate owned by the debtor, which was not properly appraised and accounted for, calls into question the expediency of liquidation as the sole method for satisfying creditors’ claims.
– The Court rejected arguments regarding the impossibility of conducting the analysis due to the lack of documents from the director, noting that the administrator should have obtained information from other official sources and registries.
– The Supreme Court confirmed the right of the debtor’s director to file an appeal against the resolution on declaring bankruptcy, even after the termination of his powers, as this decision directly affects his rights and interests.
– The Court of Appeal reasonably overturned the premature liquidation resolution, as the impossibility of restoring the debtor’s solvency had not been proven.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals of the Lviv City Council and the arbitration manager, upholding the decision of the appellate court to return the case to the asset management stage.
Case No. 908/2402/22 dated 09/17/2026
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of a debt in the amount of over 2 million hryvnias from a state customer in favor of a contractor for completed construction or restoration work on infrastructure facilities.
When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the principle of strict compliance with the terms of the construction contract and the requirements of budgetary legislation governing the procedure for payment for work using state funds. In particular, it was established that the plaintiff failed to provide proper and admissible evidence confirming the actual completion of the scope of work in the claimed amount or compliance with the acceptance-transfer procedure provided for by the contract. The Court drew attention to the fact that the existence of a certificate of completion of works in itself is not an unconditional basis for the recovery of funds if the customer reasonably objects to the scope or quality of the completed tasks. The position of the Prosecutor’s Office, which acted in the interests of the state and pointed to the lack of legal grounds for making payments in the disputed amount due to the non-compliance of the documentation with the requirements of current legislation, was also taken into account. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had correctly established the factual circumstances of the case and correctly applied the substantive law without committing procedural violations. Thus, the cassation appeal was found to be groundless, as the plaintiff’s arguments did not refute the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the lack of legal grounds for satisfying the claims.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the lower courts unchanged.
Case No. 904/6231/25 dated 09/02/20261. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery from a real estate owner of unjustly enriched funds in the amount of rent for the actual use of a communally owned land plot in the absence of executed title documents.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The Supreme Court confirmed 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 building owner becomes the actual user of the land from the moment of acquiring ownership of the real estate.
* The Court emphasized that the relations of actual land use without a contract are of a condictional nature (Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine); therefore, the real estate owner is obliged to reimburse the land owner (City Council) for the cost of its use.
* The Court of Appeal erroneously limited itself only to a formal check of postal addresses (Pushkina St., 2 and 2a), without examining the essence of the issue regarding the actual location of the real estate objects on the disputed plot.
* The Supreme Court pointed out that discrepancies in addresses in documents may be technical errors that do not refute the fact of land use; therefore, the court is obliged to evaluate all evidence in the aggregate, including site inspection reports.
* The Court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the prejudicial nature of decisions in other cases, noting that only facts established by the court have prejudice, rather than the legal assessment of circumstances provided by a different composition of the court.
* As a result, the Supreme Court recognized the conclusions of the Court of Appeal as premature due to incomplete examination of evidence and violation of procedural law norms regarding the evaluation of evidence according to the “probability” standard.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Commercial Court of Appeal and remanded the case for a new trial to the same appellate court.
**Case No. 601/2910/24 dated 08/09/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional standpoint:
1. The subject of the dispute in this case was the possibility of applying to a person convicted of evasion of mobilization (Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) the provisions of Article 75 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on exemption from serving a sentence with probation.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the lower courts approached sentencing formally, without fully taking into account the identity of the convict and the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing is a discretionary power of the court, which must be based on the principles of justice and individualization. The panel of judges took into account that the convict had no prior criminal record, is characterized positively, has a minor child to support, and is a member of a religious organization, which indicates the possibility of his rehabilitation without actual imprisonment. The court also took into account the practice of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, which allows the application of a probationary period in [cases concerning…]rights of this category, provided there are appropriate grounds. Thus, the Court of Cassation recognized that actual imprisonment in this particular case is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the punishment.
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, modifying the judgment and the ruling of the lower courts by releasing the convicted person from serving the primary punishment on probation with a probationary period of 2 years.
Case No. 195/1097/25 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 analysis:
1. The subject of the dispute is the cassation appeal filed by the convicted person against the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the inadequacy of the imposed sentence for illegal handling of weapons (Part 1 of Article 263 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) due to its severity.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of sentencing belongs to the discretionary powers of the court, that is, the right to choose the measure of punishment within the limits of the law, taking into account all circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the appellate instance lawfully excluded an aggravating circumstance (recidivism) from the judgment; however, this does not oblige the court to automatically reduce the sentence if it remains fair. The panel of judges pointed out that the convicted person did not provide evidence of a disability, which he referred to in his appeal, and did not claim “family protection” motives during the proceedings in the court of first instance. Regarding the issue of crediting the period of house arrest, the Court clarified that this matter must be resolved in accordance with the procedure for the execution of judgments (Articles 537, 539 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and not through a cassation appeal. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the imposed sentence (5 years of imprisonment with a probationary period of 3 years) is proportionate and complies with the principles of individualization.
3. The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of the convicted person unsatisfied, and the court decisions of the lower instances unchanged.
Case No. 947/9941/22 dated 16/09/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision in case No. 947/9941/22:
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which upheld the judgment against the convicted person for committing robbery under martial law, while the convicted person challenged the proof of his guilt, the legality of the detention, and the correctness of the sentence calculation.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the fact that the lower courts had properly examined the evidence, in particular the testimony of the victim and a witness, who consistently identified the convicted person as the perpetrator of the crime. The Court noted that the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence and the use of prohibited investigative methods were checked and refuted, in particular by the resolution on the closure of criminal proceedings regarding the actions of law enforcement officers. Regarding the allegations of illegal detention, the Court established that the convicted person was voluntarily present at the police station until the moment of official ar[continuation of the text] of suspicion; therefore, there were no violations of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The court also emphasized that the appellate instance, by excluding the application of Articles 71 and 72 of the Criminal Code, actually improved the position of the convicted person rather than worsening it. The Supreme Court found no grounds for overturning the challenged decision, as it is well-reasoned and complies with the requirements of procedural law.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal, and to dismiss the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 947/9941/22 dated 16/09/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding the conviction of a person for committing robbery under martial law (Part 4, Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) following a cassation appeal by the convicted person.
2. During the cassation proceedings, the Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law in delivering their decision. The panel of judges analyzed the materials of the criminal proceedings and the arguments set forth in the convicted person’s cassation appeal for the presence of significant violations of criminal procedural law. The Court concluded that the appellate court had duly examined all arguments of the defense and provided reasoned responses to them. No grounds for overturning the challenged decision due to incorrect application of the law or procedural violations were established. The Court confirmed that the classification of the convicted person’s actions under Part 4, Article 186 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is correct, and the imposed sentence meets the requirements of the law. Thus, there are no legal grounds for satisfying the demands of the convicted person.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court and dismissed the cassation appeal of the convicted person.
Case No. 931/358/23 dated 01/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided court decision. Here is a concise analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Cassation appeal of the verdict and the ruling of the appellate court regarding the legality of qualifying a police officer’s actions under Article 362 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unauthorized alteration of information in automated systems) during his preparation of knowingly false official documents.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court is obliged to provide comprehensive and reasoned responses to every essential argument of the defense, rather than limiting itself to a formal enumeration of evidence.
– The defense insisted on the absence of the elements of a crime under Article 362 of the Criminal Code in the actions of the convicted person, as he did not personally enter data into the system, but merely relayed false information to other employees.
– The court of cassation instance emphasized that for qualification under Article 362 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to clearly establish the objective side of the crime, namely, whether the person committed acts that led to the modification or distortion of information in the automated system.
– The appellate court failed to analyze in what exactly the unauthorized alteration of information consisted.on the part of the convicted person, and did not refute the defense’s arguments regarding the absence of his technical authority for such interference.
– Due to the lack of proper assessment of these arguments in the appellate court’s ruling, a significant violation of the requirements of the criminal procedural law was committed (Article 419 of the CPC).
– The court of cassation instance pointed out that a formal approach to appellate review is incompatible with the principles of fair trial; therefore, the case requires a retrial in the appellate court to address these gaps.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the appellate court, and ordered a new consideration in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 466/1866/24 dated 14/09/2026
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:** Termination of the right of use of a land plot by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the “Viysk-torg-servis” Concern, which is necessary for the maintenance of real estate owned by the plaintiff (Private Enterprise “Fortopolis”).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court of first instance erroneously closed the proceedings, having decided that there was no subject of the dispute and that the case should be heard in a commercial, rather than a civil, court.
* The appellate court reasonably noted that the subject of the dispute is the object of the disputed legal relations, which continues to exist, as the issue of the right to use the plot has not yet been resolved.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that a conclusion regarding the absence of a dispute or the groundlessness of claims against individual defendants (in particular, an individual) must be made only after consideration of the case on its merits, and not at the stage of closing the proceedings.
* The court emphasized that closing proceedings is an extreme measure applied only when resolving the case on its merits has become impossible, which has not been established in this case.
* The issue of delineating jurisdiction (civil or commercial) must be resolved taking into account all circumstances, and not through the artificial isolation of individual defendants.
* The cassation appeals did not contain convincing arguments that would refute the correctness of the appellate court’s conclusions regarding the procedural violations committed by the local court.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and left the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, referring the case back to the court of first instance for continued consideration.
Case No. 924/49/26 dated 15/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Consideration of the application by the Condominium (OSBB) “Priozernyi” for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred during the consideration of the case in the court of cassation instance.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to reimbursement of attorney’s fees is not absolute and must meet the criteria of re-reasonableness, validity, and proportionality to the subject matter of the dispute. The court noted that the amount of the legal fee must be commensurate with the complexity of the case, the scope of work performed, and the time spent by the attorney. In this case, the court critically evaluated the content of the response to the cassation appeal, indicating that it was largely based on quoting already well-known judicial practice and legislation, which did not require significant intellectual effort. Since the defendant’s position in the case was consistent and the representation was provided by the same attorney as in the lower courts, the court concluded that the claimed amount was excessive. Considering these factors, the court exercised its right to reduce the amount of expenses subject to reimbursement, determining them in the amount of UAH 3,000 instead of the claimed UAH 8,000.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to pay UAH 3,000 in legal assistance expenses in favor of the Condominium (OSBB) and denying the remainder of the amount.
Case No. 916/3610/21 dated 09/15/2026
The subject matter of the dispute in this case is the invalidation and cancellation of decisions of the governing bodies of the public organization “Water-Motor Sports and Health Society of Amateur Fishermen.”
In rendering its decision, the court was guided by the need to verify compliance with procedural requirements established by the charter of the public organization and the current legislation of Ukraine during the adoption of the challenged decisions. The Supreme Court analyzed the case files and determined that the courts of first and appellate instances had fully and comprehensively examined the circumstances relevant to the correct resolution of the dispute. Specifically, the lawfulness of convening and holding the general meeting was verified, as well as the presence of a quorum necessary for adopting legitimate decisions. The court concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal of [Person’s Name] do not refute the findings of the lower instances regarding the legality of the challenged acts. It was also taken into account that the violations cited by the appellant are not material and did not affect the expression of the will of the organization’s members. Therefore, there are no grounds for overturning the decisions of the lower courts, which had already provided a proper legal assessment of the evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of [Person’s Name] and upheld the decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast and the resolution of the South-Western Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 911/835/25 dated 09/15/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the challenge to the legality of the decisions of the general meeting of LLC “Voloshkove Pole,” as well as demands for the cancellation of a dismissal order and the reinstatement of the plaintiffs to their positions.
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, concluded that there was a necessity to partially grant the company’s cassation appeal. The court analyzed the case files and determined that the appellate court’s resolution regarding the invalidation of the general meeting’s decision was unsubstantiated; therefore, it upheld the original decision of the local coof the commercial court, which was more balanced. Regarding the labor dispute, the Supreme Court identified a violation of substantive law when assessing the circumstances of the plaintiffs’ dismissal. The panel of judges concluded that there were no grounds for reinstatement in the positions, as the dismissal procedure complied with the requirements of the law. Thus, the court rendered a new decision on its own, denying the claims for reinstatement. The court also redistributed the court fee expenses, imposing them on the plaintiffs in accordance with the outcome of the cassation appeal review.
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal: it upheld the decision of the court of first instance regarding the invalidity of the meeting resolutions and rendered a new decision denying the claim for reinstatement in the positions.
Case No. 908/2922/25 dated 09/15/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a concise and professional analysis for your material:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of land lease arrears, termination of the lease agreement, and return of the land plot due to systematic underpayment of funds by the lessee, caused by a change in the regulatory monetary valuation of the land.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court was guided by the principle of “preservation of contract,” emphasizing that termination of a contract is an extreme measure applied only in the event of a material breach of terms.
* It was established that the lessee did not cease the use of the plot and did not refuse to fulfill obligations, and the dispute that arose concerned only the methodology for calculating payment following the change in the regulatory monetary valuation.
* The court emphasized that the mere fact of the existence of a debt is not an automatic ground for termination of the contract if the lessor can protect their rights by collecting the underpaid amounts.
* It was taken into account that at the time of concluding the agreement, the parties could not foresee the future change in the regulatory monetary valuation; therefore, the underpayment was not a consequence of malicious conduct by the lessee.
* The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, as the legal position regarding the application of Article 651 of the Civil Code of Ukraine has already been established in Case No. 918/391/23.
* The court noted that the issue of materiality of a breach is evaluative and is decided in each specific case, taking into account the balance of the parties’ interests, and not solely based on the percentage ratio of the debt.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the village council’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the absence of grounds for termination of the lease agreement.
Case No. 2027/11883/12 dated 09/17/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the question of the possibility of extending the deadline for a cassation appeal against the verdict of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal, handed down back in 2013–2014, directly by the Supreme Court.
2. When rendering the decision, the court…[he/it] was guided by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of 1960, as this specific law governed the procedure for appealing decisions in this case. The Supreme Court established that the convicted person had missed the three-month deadline for filing a cassation appeal, as they had received a copy of the appellate court’s ruling back in April 2014. According to the provisions of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure, the issue of reinstating a missed deadline must be resolved exclusively by the court that rendered the appealed decision, and not by the court of cassation instance. Since the convicted person filed the motion for reinstatement of the deadline directly to the Supreme Court, they violated the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court emphasized that it lacks the authority to consider such motions; therefore, they cannot be granted. Consequently, due to the expiration of the deadline and the absence of a decision by a competent court regarding its reinstatement, the cassation appeal cannot be subject to review, and the retrieval of the case file is impossible.
3. The Supreme Court ruled to leave the convicted person’s motion for reinstatement of the deadline without consideration and to deny the request to retrieve the criminal case file for cassation review.
Case No. 757/33123/25-k of 09/14/2026
The subject matter of this dispute is the lawfulness of returning the applicant’s appellate complaint due to her failure to comply with the deadline for filing an appeal against the investigating judge’s ruling.
In its decision, the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the procedural deadline for appealing an investigating judge’s ruling is five days from the moment of its pronouncement. The Court established that the applicant was duly notified of the date and time of the hearing via SMS message, as she had chosen this method of notification in her complaint. Since the applicant was notified but failed to appear at the hearing, the deadline for filing an appeal began to run from the day of the ruling’s pronouncement, rather than from the day of its receipt by mail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule regarding the calculation of the deadline from the moment of receiving a copy of the decision applies only when the person was not summoned to court. Since the applicant filed the appellate complaint well after the established five-day deadline and did not file a motion for its reinstatement, the appellate court had full legal grounds for its return. Thus, the cassation appeal was deemed unfounded, as the appellate court acted within its powers and in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appellate complaint.
Case No. 610/2723/24 of 09/16/2026
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the review of the lawfulness of the judgments of the first and appellate instance courts regarding the conviction of a person for committing criminal offenses provided for by Part 2 of Article 111 (high treason) and Part 5 of Article 111-1 (collaborative activity) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. During the cassation review, the Supreme Court verified the compliance of the lower courts with the norms of substantive and procedural law in qualifying the acts of the…of the convicted person. The court analyzed the materials of the criminal proceedings and concluded that the findings of the courts of first and appellate instances regarding the proven guilt of PERSON_7 are well-founded and based on proper evidence. The panel of judges did not identify any material violations of the requirements of the criminal procedural law that would have prevented the adoption of a lawful and fair decision. The arguments of the defense, set forth in the cassation appeal, were found to be untenable and failing to refute the facts of the commission of the crimes established by the courts. The court confirmed the correctness of the application of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine when sentencing for a concurrence of crimes. Thus, the cassation instance found no grounds for overturning or amending the challenged judicial decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the defense attorney’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower courts.
Case No. 761/21976/21 of 09/16/2026
Here is a detailed analysis of the judicial decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the appellate court’s refusal to initiate proceedings due to the defendant’s failure to meet the one-year deadline for filing an appeal against the court of first instance’s decision.
2. The Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that, pursuant to Part 2 of Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the expiration of the one-year period from the date of drawing up the full text of the decision is an imperative ground for refusing to initiate appellate proceedings, regardless of the validity of the reasons for the delay. The only exception is cases where a person was not notified at all about the consideration of the case or was not involved in it, which was not confirmed in this situation. The court established that the defendant was aware of the existence of the judicial proceedings, filed a response, a motion for recusal, and personally participated in court hearings. The Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to notify a party about a specific court hearing at which a decision was rendered is not equivalent to a failure to notify about the case proceedings as a whole, provided the person was aware of the existence of the dispute. Consequently, the appellate court rightfully applied procedural limitations, as the defendant failed to prove the existence of force majeure circumstances or the fact of complete lack of awareness regarding the process. The court of cassation instance emphasized that the right of access to justice is not absolute and may be restricted to ensure the stability of judicial decisions.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of the appellate court on the refusal to initiate appellate proceedings.
Case No. 523/3030/25 of 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the judicial decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the division of property acquired while living together as a single family without a registered marriage, demanding the recognition of her ownership rights to shares in two apartments and a car.
2. **Main****Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that for the termination of proceedings under Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (identity of the dispute), a complete coincidence of three elements is required: the parties, the subject matter, and the grounds of the claim. In the present case, the composition of the parties in the new case has changed, as new defendants (first-priority heirs) have been involved, which automatically excludes the identity of the cases. The courts of previous instances mistakenly equated the claims for “establishing the fact of cohabitation” (previous case) and “division of property” (current case), which have different legal natures. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural law provides for the termination of proceedings in the case as a whole, and not just in the part of the claims against one of the defendants. Since the non-identity of at least one element (in this case, the composition of the parties) provides the right to apply to the court, the termination of the proceedings was recognized as illegal. The Court also noted that the involvement of new defendants is not “artificial” but is an exercise of the plaintiff’s right to protect her interests in a dispute over inherited property.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remitting the case to the court of first instance for further consideration on the merits.
Case No. 536/512/25 of 09/17/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision provided by you. Here is a brief summary of the case:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of returning a statement of claim to the prosecutor regarding the restitution of a land plot due to non-compliance with the court’s requirements to deposit monetary compensation into a deposit account.
2. The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court, indicating that the court of first instance committed gross procedural errors. Firstly, the court had no right to apply Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (return of a statement) after the proceedings in the case had already been opened, since other mechanisms apply in such cases. Secondly, the requirements to deposit funds were based on a new law that entered into force only after the proceedings in the case were opened. The Court emphasized that procedural norms establishing new obligations for the parties do not have retroactive effect. Since the claim was filed before the entry into force of this law, the prosecutor was not obliged to fulfill requirements that did not exist at that time. Accordingly, there were no grounds to leave the claim without movement, and the actions of the court of first instance were recognized as illegal.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the resolution of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling on the return of the claim and remitted the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
Case No. 127/18159/24 of 09/16/2026
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:** Establishing the fact of the plaintiff’s permanent residence as a single family with the decedent.for a period of no less than five years prior to the opening of the succession in order to exercise the right to inherit.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that determining the circle of defendants is the exclusive right of the plaintiff, and the court must verify the merits of the claim rather than merely formally assessing the standing of the defendant at the stage of initiating proceedings. The appellate court erroneously dismissed the claim, citing the existence of other heirs without establishing the legal facts regarding their acceptance of or refusal to accept the inheritance. The Court stressed that in cases concerning the recognition of ownership rights by way of inheritance, the proper defendant is either the heirs who have accepted the inheritance or the local self-government body (if there are no heirs). Since the appellate court did not examine the circumstances of the case on their merits but limited itself only to procedural conclusions regarding the defendant, this was deemed a violation of procedural law. The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate instance was obligated to evaluate the evidence of cohabitation rather than simply overturning the first-instance decision based on the subject composition. Consequently, the case was remanded for a new trial for a full and comprehensive clarification of the circumstances.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Case No. 927/84/16(758/13794/20) dated 09/14/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the resolution of the issue of distribution of legal costs (court fees), which were not distributed by the Supreme Court during the adoption of the decision on the merits of the case.
2. The Court was guided by the fact that, in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, in the event of overturning the court decisions of lower instances and adopting a new decision to dismiss the claim, legal costs are borne by the plaintiff. Since the Supreme Court, in its previous resolution of 05/12/2026, did not resolve the issue of cost distribution, it had the legal right to adopt an additional court decision. The Court verified the evidence provided by the defendant regarding the payment of court fees for filing appellate and cassation appeals. It was established that the total amount of costs is 29,007 UAH 60 kop. The Court confirmed that these costs are documented and subject to reimbursement. Thus, placing the obligation to pay these funds on the plaintiff is a logical consequence of overturning the decisions rendered in his disfavor.
3. The Court decided to collect from the Association of Co-owners of the Apartment Building “OSBB v 16A” in favor of PERSON_1 the amount of 29,007 UAH 60 kop. in legal costs.
**Case No. 754/10915/25 dated 09/02/2026**
Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your review:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The legality of the appellate court’s return of the plaintiff’s appeal due to his violation of the statutorily established method of its filing (sending the appealto the court of first instance, rather than the appellate instance).
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural order for submitting documents to the court is mandatory and is intended to ensure the proper progress of the case. Since the relevant modules of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System were already operational in the appellate court at the time the dispute arose, the provisions of the “Transitional Provisions” of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the possibility of filing complaints through the court of first instance lost their relevance. The Court stressed that, pursuant to Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an appellate complaint must be filed directly with the appellate court. The plaintiff, however, sent the complaint to the email address of the court of first instance, which directly contradicts the requirements of the procedural law. The Court noted that returning a complaint due to non-compliance with the procedure does not constitute a violation of the right to access to justice, as the applicant is not deprived of the right to reapply after correcting the error. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff’s arguments regarding their health condition do not exempt them from the obligation to adhere to procedural rules established for all participants in the judicial process.
3. **Court’s Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appellate complaint.
Case No. 991/3669/25 dated 09/16/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with 15 years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** The case concerns the recognition of assets of a military official and members of their family (spouse) as unjustified and their compulsory forfeiture to state revenue due to the discrepancy between the value of the property and legal income.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The Court established that the total value of the assets acquired by the defendants (vehicles, real estate, foreign currency) significantly exceeds the total legal income of the couple for the respective years.
* The Court applied the “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, which is characteristic of civil *in rem* proceedings, where the burden of proving the legality of the origin of the property is effectively shifted to the owner if the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of a discrepancy in income.
* Regarding the value of the property, the Court rightly used the consultations of an appraisal entity (PE “Azhiyo”), as they were prepared by a qualified professional in compliance with valuation methodology, unlike the reports provided by the defendants, which did not contain justification for the calculations.
* The Court rejected arguments regarding the use of “savings” from previous years, as the corresponding monetary assets were not reflected in the defendant’s 2020 declarations; therefore, they cannot be considered a legal source for subsequent purchases.
* Regarding the real estate, the Court deemed it unjustified because the market value of the objects, as determined by the appraiser, significantly exceeded the amounts stated in the purchase and sale agreements, which indicates an attempt to conceal the actual value of the asset.
* The Court also noted that the absence of the defendants in the hearings is not a pean obstacle, as they were duly notified (through notations regarding the absence of the addressee or the delivery of summons to their representative), and their passive position in the appeal and cassation proceedings indicates actual consent to the decision.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, by which the claim for recognizing assets as unjustified and their recovery into state revenue was partially satisfied.
Case No. 761/22529/24-cv dated 09/09/2026
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** A challenge by an individual to an order of the Department of Urban Planning and Architecture regarding the issuance of urban planning conditions and restrictions (MUO) for the construction of an office and residential complex, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, violates their non-property rights concerning cultural and aesthetic needs and the historical environment.
2. **Court’s Arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the key criterion for determining jurisdiction is the essence of the disputed legal relations, and not merely the participation of a subject of authority. The court noted that disputes regarding the development of land plots, as a result of which civil rights arise for third parties, are private-law disputes, even if they concern the challenging of actions of an authority. The plaintiff is not in public-law relations with the Department, as the challenged order does not establish any obligations for them, but merely violates their private non-property interests. The court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 2, 2026 (case No. 308/17484/23), which clearly distinguishes such disputes in favor of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, the courts of previous instances erroneously closed the proceedings, considering the dispute to be administrative. — In this decision, the Supreme Court relies directly on the conclusion of the Joint Chamber, which enshrines the approach to considering such cases specifically under civil procedure, effectively departing from previous practice, which often sent such claims to administrative courts.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court, remanding the case to the court of first instance to continue consideration on the merits under civil procedure.
Case No. 607/18991/22 dated 17/09/2026
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:** Challenging the actions of a state enforcement officer regarding the closure of enforcement proceedings in connection with the alleged full execution of a court decision prohibiting the operation of a ventilation system until it is properly equipped.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
* The court established that the court decision being enforced has a complex nature: it not only prohibits operation but also defines the condition under which this prohibition terminates (installation of pipes in accordance with State Building Norms (DBN)).
* The enforcement officer erroerroneously applied part 4 of Article 63 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, limiting itself only to formally notifying the debtor of the content of the prohibition.
* The court emphasized that the state enforcement officer is obliged to verify the actual execution of the judgment, rather than merely limiting themselves to notifying the debtor of the existence of a prohibition.
* Since the debtor failed to comply with the requirements regarding the technical installation of ventilation, the court’s judgment cannot be considered fully executed.
* The court noted that the enforcement officer has the right and the duty to engage specialists to verify the technical aspects of execution if this is necessary to establish the fact of the judgment’s execution.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the artificial division of the operative part of a judgment into separate “prohibitions” and “obligations” is inadmissible, as it constitutes a single, comprehensive judicial decision.
* In case of doubts regarding the procedure for execution, the enforcement officer had the right to apply to the court for clarification, rather than closing the proceedings prematurely.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the ruling of the appellate court, which declared the enforcement officer’s actions unlawful and ordered the resumption of enforcement proceedings, without changes.
**Case No. 906/1232/22 dated 09/15/2026**
Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the provided judicial decision. Here is a detailed breakdown of the case:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determining the priority of satisfaction of monetary claims of a creditor (Village Council) against a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings, which arose as a result of compensation for damages for unauthorized use of subsoil.
2. **Arguments of the court:**
– The court established that the Village Council’s claims are based on a court decision to recover material damages, which, by their legal nature, constitute tort liability (compensation for non-contractual harm).
– The Supreme Court distinguished between the concepts of “penalty” (fines, interest), which are accessory (additional) in nature and are satisfied in the sixth priority, and independent monetary obligations arising from the infliction of harm.
– Since the obligation to compensate for damages for unauthorized use of subsoil is an independent monetary obligation and not a derivative sanction from another contract, it does not fall under the exceptions of Article 1 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures regarding “financial sanctions.”
– The court emphasized that the Methodology for determining the amount of damages for violation of environmental legislation does not classify such charges as punitive sanctions, but defines them as compensation for harm caused to the state.
– Accordingly, such claims cannot be classified under the sixth priority of satisfaction, as they are not a penalty, but a principal debt, which is subject to satisfaction in the fourth priority.
– The court also noted that previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, which the appellant relied upon, do not refute the legal position in this case, as they relate to different legal relations.
– In conclusion, the court reached the determination that the courts of lower instances correctly applied the norms of substantive law by classifying the damages as fourth-priority claims.ergies.
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.
Case No. 214/8572/25 of 09/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the review of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling regarding a person convicted of committing criminal offenses provided for by Articles 263, 296, and 408 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the defense attorney’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were significant violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law committed by the appellate court. The Court established that during the appellate review, procedural guarantees ensuring the right to a fair trial and the proper consideration of the arguments of the defense were not observed. Since the appellate court did not provide exhaustive responses to the arguments set forth in the appeal, this made it impossible to verify the legality and validity of the judgment of the court of first instance. The Supreme Court emphasized that failure to comply with the requirements regarding the reasoned nature of a judicial decision is grounds for its cancellation. Therefore, to remedy the committed violations and ensure a full and comprehensive consideration of the case, the proceedings materials must be returned to the appellate court. At the same time, in order to prevent risks of absconding from justice, the Court selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention in custody.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and ordered a new trial in the appellate court, having selected a preventive measure for the accused in the form of detention in custody.
Case No. 910/3606/25 of 09/17/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is a demand to declare bank guarantees as unenforceable within the framework of commercial legal relations between EGF Trading LLC, JSC Ukrgasvydobuvannya, and JSC Bank Alliance.
2. The court of cassation concluded that the previous findings of the appellate court were erroneous and did not comply with the norms of substantive and procedural law. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal nature of a bank guarantee as an independent obligation that is separate from the underlying contract and emphasized the need for strict compliance with procedural rules when considering such claims. The Court pointed out that the ruling of the court of first instance, which decided the merits of the dispute or procedural aspects, was adopted in compliance with all requirements of the law. The appellate court, conversely, committed violations that led to an incorrect resolution of the case, which became the basis for the cancellation of its resolution. The Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the position of the court of first instance, considering it substantiated and in accordance with established judicial practice regarding the irrevocable nature of bank guarantees. Thus, the cassation instance restored legality by canceling the appellate decision and upholding the original court decision.3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of JSC “Ukrgazvydobuvannya”, set aside the ruling of the court of appeal, and upheld the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kyiv City.
Case No. 910/9115/25 dated 09/17/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of LLC “Ukoil” for invalidation of certain clauses of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, by which sanctions were imposed or a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition was established.
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the cassation appeal, concluded that the courts of first and appellate instances committed substantial violations of procedural law norms, which made it impossible to establish factual circumstances significant for the correct resolution of the case. In particular, the cassation instance pointed to the insufficient completeness of the examination of evidence provided by the parties and the improper assessment of the Antimonopoly Committee’s arguments regarding the legality of the decision it adopted. The Court emphasized that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it was necessary to analyze in more detail the procedural aspects of adopting the challenged AMCU decision and the compliance of the Committee’s actions with the requirements of special legislation. Since the courts of previous instances did not provide a proper legal assessment of all the defendant’s arguments, the Supreme Court is deprived of the opportunity to independently establish the circumstances of the case due to the limited powers of the cassation instance. Therefore, to ensure a full and objective consideration of the case, it must be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance to remedy the identified deficiencies.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal in part, set aside the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Kyiv City.
Case No. 450/3483/17 dated 09/16/2026
1. The subject of the dispute is the verification of the legality of the appellate court’s ruling, which concluded the proceedings in a criminal case regarding the accusation of a person of violating traffic safety rules, which caused grievous bodily harm or death to the victim (Part 2, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
2. The Supreme Court, while considering the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, concluded that there were substantial violations of the requirements of criminal procedural law during the appellate review of the case. The court of cassation instance established that the court of appeal did not ensure a proper verification of the arguments set forth in the appeal of the prosecution side, which is mandatory for compliance with the principle of legality and reasonableness of judicial decisions. In particular, the requirements regarding the completeness of the examination of the case circumstances were ignored, which could have affected the correctness of the conclusions of the court of appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the procedural deficiencies committed during the consideration of the appeal prevented the adoption of a lawful and fair decision. In view of this, to ensure the right to a fair trial and proper administration of justice, the case materials must be reviewed again. The Court did not depart
