Case No. 756/5368/19 dated 08/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not participate in the apartment privatization and did not acquire ownership rights to its part, as the donation agreement was declared invalid. Therefore, she does not have a legally protected interest in amending the property ownership certificate. The plaintiff’s intention to initiate a review of the previous court decision on the invalidity of the donation agreement does not meet the criteria of a “legally protected interest”.
Case No. 671/2696/23 dated 13/01/2025
The court established that the employer complied with all legislative requirements when dismissing: an assessment of qualifications and work productivity of all pediatric doctors was conducted, where the plaintiff scored the lowest number of points (34 out of 41 possible); the number of her declarations decreased from 641 to 350, while for other doctors it increased; the trade union’s consent was obtained and the dismissal notification procedure was followed. There were no vacant positions for transfer.
Case No. 178/934/19 dated 18/12/2024
The cassation instance court found that the courts of previous instances made a significant violation of procedural law – they did not consider the plaintiffs’ motion to change the subject of the claim from terminating lease agreements to declaring them invalid. The courts also did not ensure a comprehensive and complete clarification of the case circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the dispute.
Case No. 686/14714/21 dated 08/01/2025
The court established that the disputed land plot belonged to unclaimed shares of the former Agricultural Collective Farm “Vidrodzhennia” and was to be transferred to communal ownership. However, in 2019, it was illegally transferred to private ownership of PERSON_1, who then sold it to PERSON_2. Since the plot was alienated from the territorial community’s possession against its will based on an illegal state body decision, the court found its recovery from the good faith acquirer to be lawful.
Case No. 948/2166/23 dated 13/01/2025
The court, when rendering its decision, was guided by the following: 1) PERSON_3, who receives alimony from the same payer based on another court decision, has no right to appeal the decision on alimony collection in favor of PERSON_1, as this decision does not violate her rights; 2) the presence of other dependents is taken into account by the court when determining the alimony amount but does not affect the right to receive alimony; 3) to reduce the amount of previously assigned alimony, a separate lawsuit must be filed.
Case No. 761/8285/22 dated 24/12/2024
The cassation instance court found that the appellate court considered the case with a procedural law violation – in the absence of the defendant, who was not properly notified of the court session. Placing a notification on the judicial authority’s website when information about the defendant’s registered place of residence is available cannot be considered a proper method of notification.What violation is an unconditional ground for canceling the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 638/2757/19 dated 20/11/2024
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that the plaintiffs (heirs of the deceased founder) are essentially challenging corporate rights and seeking to change the distribution of shares in the enterprise’s authorized capital. Such a dispute is related to the management of a legal entity and is corporate in nature, and therefore should be considered under commercial rather than civil proceedings. The court also noted that there is no dispute regarding the plaintiffs’ inheritance rights.
Case No. 642/3361/21 dated 08/01/2025
The cassation instance court concluded that this dispute should be considered under the rules of civil, not administrative proceedings, since the city council approached the court as the landowner to protect its property rights, not as a body exercising administrative functions. The court also took into account that the claim was substantiated by violations of the Civil Code provisions regarding unauthorized construction.
Case No. 465/9808/21 dated 08/01/2025
The court in rendering its decision was guided by the fact that: 1) the suspension of unvaccinated employees was provided by law and had a legitimate goal of protecting public health; 2) the teaching position involved a significant number of social contacts with students and colleagues; 3) during the suspension period, both remote and mixed forms of education were applied; 4) the plaintiff did not provide evidence of medical contraindications to vaccination.
Case No. 760/19455/23 dated 10/01/2025
The appellate court canceled the first instance court’s decision and left the prosecutor’s application without consideration, since PERSON_1, who was registered in the apartment together with the deceased, filed an application for accepting inheritance as a fourth-order heir. The court decided that there is an existing dispute about the right to inheritance, which cannot be considered in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, as the applicant (prosecutor) and Kyiv City Council did not appeal the appellate court’s decision, which indicates their agreement with it.
Case No. 185/11061/21 dated 18/12/2024
The subject of the dispute is establishing the fact of a man and woman living together as a family without marriage registration and recognizing ownership of a 1/2 share of a residential house and a car. The court was guided by the fact that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of living together as a family with the deceased, maintaining a joint household, and having a common budget. The court noted that joint photographs and witness testimonies alone cannot be the sole basis for establishing the fact of living together as a family. It was also not proven that the disputed property was purchased with the parties’ joint funds. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision to satisfy the claim and upheld the first instance court’s decision to reject the claims.The court was guided by the following: 1) the private executor’s actions regarding property valuation complied with legal requirements; 2) the private executor cannot influence the valuation procedure, as the valuation entity is independent; 3) the debtor’s review of the valuation report is not a valid proof of property undervaluation.
Case No. 192/152/22 dated 18/12/2024
The court established that the land lease agreement dated 22.03.2007 was not signed by the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the forensic handwriting examination conclusion. Although the plaintiff received funds for the actual use of the land plot, this does not indicate her will to enter into a lease agreement for 40 years. The court also rejected the argument about the need to apply the doctrine of prohibition of contradictory behavior, as the fact of agreement conclusion was not proven.
Case No. 143/41/22 dated 08/01/2025
The court established that the land share donation agreement is not concluded, as the donor’s representative (plaintiff) did not sign it, which is confirmed by the expert examination. The land plot was alienated from the owner’s possession against his will. The plaintiff is the heir of the original landowner and has the right to reclaim the property. The court also rejected the defendant’s objection regarding the statute of limitations, as the plaintiff became aware of the violation of her right only in 2017.
Case No. 385/84/23 dated 18/12/2024
The court was guided by the fact that the lessee (FG “Olena”) did not refute the owner’s statement about not signing the additional agreement and avoided providing its original, which made it impossible to conduct a handwriting examination. The court also considered that canceling state registration is an effective way to protect the owner’s violated right, as it ensures real restoration of their land use right.
Case No. 758/14066/19 dated 13/01/2025
The court established that the claim was filed against an improper defendant (private notary), as the dispute actually exists between the plaintiff and the financial company regarding real estate rights. Moreover, the additional statement of claim with new demands could not be considered in the appellate instance, as it was not the subject of consideration in the court of first instance.
Case No. 755/264/19 dated 27/11/2024
The court established that the plaintiff chose an ineffective method of protecting their right, as the proper way to protect property rights is to reclaim the property from the last acquirer, not to declare all subsequent transactions regarding the property invalid. The court also noted that the creditor did not miss the deadline for presenting claims to the heirs of the deceased debtor, therefore, there are no grounds for declaring the mortgage terminated.
Case No. 725/1751/22 dated 08/01/2025
When rendering the decision, the court was guided by the following: 1) the bank timely filed claims to the heirs within the 6-month period; 2) the company to which the bank assigned the credit claim
