Case No. 639/4094/15-c dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Ownership Right to a Part of a Residential House and Its Recovery from the Current Owner through Inheritance Procedure.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The plaintiff is an heir to 1/3 of a residential house after the death of her father, who previously inherited the property from his father.
2. The previous court decision recognizing ownership of the house for another person was cancelled, therefore subsequent purchase and sale agreements were deemed illegal.
3. The court deviated from previous judicial practice and recognized the possibility of recovering an undivided share of real estate.
Court Decision: Satisfy the plaintiff’s claim and recover 1/3 of the residential house from the current owner.
Case No. 916/4720/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Damages from the Russian Federation for Stealing a Volkswagen Touareg during the Occupation of Hola Prystan, Kherson Region.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The court noted that previous judicial instances improperly investigated the case circumstances, particularly failing to establish causal connection between vehicle theft and Russian military aggression.
2. The court pointed out the need to establish all civil offense elements: unlawfulness of actions, presence of damage, causal connection, and fault.
3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the unlawfulness of RF actions is a well-known fact, and the burden of proving absence of fault lies with the defendant.
4. The court established that before the full-scale invasion, the plaintiff conscientiously fulfilled the leasing agreement.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for comprehensive investigation of circumstances.
Case No. 444/948/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s Cassation Complaint against the Lviv Appellate Court’s Ruling in a Criminal Case about Violation of Road Traffic Safety Rules.
Key Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed case materials and concluded that the appellate court correctly evaluated evidence and adhered to all procedural norms. The court considered case circumstances, particularly the traffic accident circumstances, and found no grounds for changing previous court decisions. The prosecutor’s arguments in the cassation complaint did not contain convincing arguments that could influence the case outcome.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the Lviv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 990/98/24 dated 23/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine Refusing to Admit a Person to Participate in a Competition for an Appellate Court Judge Position due to Insufficient Scientific Work Experience.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The Law on Judicial System clearly defines that only positions of court staff with scientific-analytical duties are counted towards scientific experience.
2. The position of a judge’s assistant does not meet legal requirements for scientific experience calculation, despite having a scientific degree.
3. Special judicial system law norms take priority over general scientific activity norms when determining experience.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate complaint unsatisfied, maintain the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine’s decision refusing admission to the competition.
Case No. 146/10-06/9/5 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Actions of State Executors Regarding Seizure of Property of Private Enterprise “Erker” in a Case of Compulsory Execution of a Court DecisionResolution on Transfer of Apartments to the Ministry of Defense.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that the seizure of property not directly related to the subject of recovery (apartments) is unlawful and does not contribute to the actual execution of the court decision. Second, systematic seizure of all company property effectively blocks its economic activity, which is a disproportionate interference with property rights. Third, enforcement measures must be effective and aimed at actual execution of the court decision, not punishment of the debtor.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the previous court decisions recognizing the actions of state executors regarding property seizure as unlawful.
Case No. 910/173/23 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Distribution of court expenses between Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office and LLC “Granat” in a case concerning invalidation of additional agreements and recovery of funds.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court partially satisfied the application of LLC “Granat” for reimbursement of court expenses related to cassation review of the case. The panel of judges considered the expenses incurred by the company for professional legal assistance and found it necessary to recover 5,000 hryvnias from the prosecutor’s office. In other parts of the application, the company was denied, which indicates partial satisfaction of its claims.
Court Decision: To recover 5,000 hryvnias of court expenses for professional legal assistance from Kyiv City Prosecutor’s Office in favor of LLC “Granat”.
Case No. 824/45/22 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Postponement of execution of court decision on recovery of 14,000 euros of court expenses from JSC “Energoatom” in favor of BRV Tride s.r.o.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The applicant (JSC “Energoatom”) filed a petition for postponement of decision execution more than a year after its adoption, which directly contradicts procedural legislation.
2. Part 5 of Article 435 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine contains a clear norm on the impossibility of postponing a court decision for more than one year from the date of its adoption.
3. Even despite the complex circumstances of wartime and problems with the functioning of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the court cannot satisfy the petition due to missed deadline.
Court Decision: Deny JSC “Energoatom” in postponement of court decision execution, modifying the motivational part of the previous ruling.
Case No. 910/7481/24 dated 04/02/2025
Brief Analysis of Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Opening bankruptcy proceedings for LLC “Eco-Bud-Trade” based on the application of LLC “Spetsproekt-Invest” due to existing debt of 53,481,500.45 hryvnias.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Court established the existence of a court decision on debt recovery from the debtor
– No dispute about rights between parties
– Debtor provided no evidence to refute creditor’s claims
– Appointment of property manager occurred in compliance with established procedure
3. Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint of LLC “Eco-Bud-Trade” unsatisfied, and court decisions on opening bankruptcy proceedings unchanged.
Court decision is professional and thoroughly argued.
Case No. 569/22133/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling of the investigating judge refusing to cancel the resolution on closing criminal proceedings regarding a traffic accident.
Main Arguments of the Court: The appellate court incorrectly assessed the reasons for missing the appeal deadline, not taking into account that the victim’s representative was not familiarized with the full text of the court decision. The Supreme Court drew attention that the previous legal position of the Cassation Criminal Court provides for the possibility of renewal of the procedural deadline.Translation:
, if the person was not aware of the motives of the court decision.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling on returning the appeal and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 761/23237/20 dated 05/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Labor dispute about recognizing the dismissal of an employee of the Deposit Guarantee Fund as illegal due to staff reduction.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Dismissal occurred in compliance with labor legislation, as the employer conducted a detailed analysis of employees’ qualifications and productivity before reduction.
– The Fund provided evidence that the employee’s professional indicators were considered when selecting an employee for dismissal.
– The court established that the plaintiff did not have an unconditional priority right to remain at work, contrary to his initial claims.
3. Court Decision: Uphold the previous ruling of the appellate court on refusing to satisfy the employee’s claim.
Interestingly, the court thoroughly analyzed the dismissal procedure and concluded that the employer acted within the legal framework.
Case No. 367/3471/21 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty and moral damages for an unfulfilled carpentry works contract.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that the parties did not agree on all essential contract terms, specifically sizes, quantity, material of products, and work completion terms. Second, there is no evidence of moral damage caused to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s unlawful actions. Third, the court considered that the receipt of advance payment is not a full-fledged work contract.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the previous court instances’ decision to refuse the claim.
Case No. 908/3275/21 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Ukrainian Railways Joint Stock Company attempted to recover 10,271,544.62 UAH from the Social Protection Department of Zaporizhzhia City Council.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court instances (Economic Court of Zaporizhzhia Region and Central Appellate Economic Court) correctly evaluated evidence and adhered to procedural law norms. The court believes that the arguments of Ukrainian Railways’ cassation appeal do not provide grounds for canceling or modifying previous court decisions. The panel of judges is convinced that lower court decisions are legal and substantiated.
Court Decision: Ukrainian Railways’ cassation appeal was left unsatisfied, previous court decisions remain unchanged.
Case No. 14/161-09 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Imposing court expenses for professional legal assistance on the State Execution Service.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that legal service expenses are related to case consideration, but their amount requires partial reduction.
2. The panel of judges considered the systematic nature of legal disputes by Niko-Tais Company LLC and the relative simplicity of the case, which did not require significant lawyer time.
3. The court deemed the additional payment (“success fee”) of 3,000 UAH unreasonable, as it does not meet the reasonableness criterion.
Court Decision: Recover from the State Execution Service in favor of Niko-Tais Company LLC 2,600 UAH of legal assistance expenses, refuse the remaining claims.
Case No. 303/9349/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Qualification of a road traffic accident resulting in a person’s death and injury to a minorSubject: Sentencing of a driver and a minor victim.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court unjustifiably released the accused from serving the sentence without taking into account the severity of the criminal offense and its public danger. The court pointed out the lack of proper assessment of the case circumstances, in particular, the driver’s violation of several traffic rules, which led to the death of a person and serious bodily injuries to a minor.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
[Case No. 914/1179/20 dated 06/02/2025]
Subject of dispute: Claiming equipment from illegal possession and invalidating the participant’s decision and the act of transfer of property to the company’s authorized capital.
Main arguments of the court:
– The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence that they own the disputed equipment
– It is impossible to identify the specific property that the plaintiff requests to claim
– Witness testimonies cannot confirm circumstances that must be documented
– Motions to request additional evidence were deemed unfounded
Court decision: Completely reject the plaintiff’s claims.
Important: The court thoroughly analyzed all parties’ arguments and concluded that there are no legal grounds to satisfy the claim.
[Case No. 369/7398/24 dated 05/02/2025]
Subject of dispute: Return of prosecutor’s appeal against the first instance court’s verdict in a criminal case about attempted theft.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court incorrectly returned the prosecutor’s complaint, considering the appeal period missed. The court emphasized that the prosecutor filed the appeal by mail on August 15, 2024, which is the last day of the established 30-day period. The appellate court did not properly verify the circumstances of filing the complaint and did not take into account the rules for calculating procedural terms.
Court decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, revoked the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
[Case No. 466/6134/17 dated 06/02/2025]
Subject of dispute: Criminal proceedings regarding a robbery attack on a minor victim to seize their property.
Main arguments of the court:
– The court established that PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 acted by prior conspiracy, having a unified intent to seize the victim’s property
– They jointly attacked the minor, striking him with hands and feet, overcoming his resistance
– During the attack, they seized the victim’s headphones, power bank, wallet, and mobile phone
– The victim suffered bodily injuries in the form of concussion and abrasions
Court decision: Leave the verdict of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court and the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court unchanged, recognizing PERSON_7 and PERSON_8 guilty of robbery by prior conspiracy in a group.
[Case No. 450/2556/17 dated 05/02/2025]
Subject of dispute: Declaring illegal the village council’s decision to transfer a land plot to private ownership and canceling the state ownership certificate.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff did not provide convincing evidence that the 0.08 hectare land plot actually belonged to her family.
2. The case materials lack information about the land plot boundaries on the ground and graphic confirming documents.
3. There is no local self-government body decision to transfer the land plot to the plaintiff’s private ownership.
4. Response…PERSON_3 complied with all legally prescribed procedures when obtaining the land plot, in particular, coordinating the boundaries with adjacent land users.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the previous court instances’ decision to reject the claim.
Case No. 991/7255/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Challenging the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court on returning the defender’s application for clarification of a court decision.
The court was guided by the following key arguments: first, the criminal procedural law does not contain provisions regarding the impossibility of resolving the issue of clarifying a court decision; second, the appellate court improperly returned the application individually, whereas such a decision must be made by a panel of judges; third, the grounds for returning the application cited by the appellate court do not meet the requirements of procedural legislation.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new case review.
Case No. 922/2579/19 (922/1648/19) dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of the ruling of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Region dated 02.12.2019 on transferring case materials for further consideration within a bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The ruling of 02.12.2019 is not a court decision that concluded the case review, and therefore cannot be reviewed under newly discovered circumstances.
2. The legislator clearly distinguished between court decisions subject to review: decisions that conclude case review and special rulings in bankruptcy cases.
3. The procedural nature of the ruling on case transfer does not meet the criteria for review under newly discovered circumstances.
Court Decision: Refuse to open proceedings on the application for reviewing the ruling under newly discovered circumstances.
Case No. 7/127(917/649/24) dated 04/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Reclaiming immovable property (covered threshing floor No. 2 and granary No. 1) from the Farm Enterprise “KARAT AT” in favor of the Agricultural Limited Liability Company “NYVA”.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The property was removed from the owner’s possession against their will as a result of a series of illegal transactions
– Previous court decisions confirmed that the initial alienation of property occurred without legal grounds
– The good faith of the acquirer does not prevent the return of property to the owner, as it was removed without the owner’s consent
– The statute of limitations was not expired, as it began from the moment of registration of ownership rights for the defendant
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the claim of LLC “NYVA” and reclaim the immovable property from FE “KARAT AT”.
Case No. 335/7737/20 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against PERSON_6, who is accused of committing serious criminal offenses, including attempted murder and attempted murder under aggravating circumstances.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the cassation appeals of the defender and the convicted person, recognizing that previous court decisions require review. The court established procedural grounds for partial satisfaction of the appeals, including the need to assign a new review in the appellate court. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the previous ruling of the Zaporizhzhia Appellate Court and choose a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeals, cancelled the appellate court’s ruling, and assigned a new review, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for 60 days.
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of intentional infliction of moderate bodily harm.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_6 intentionally inflicted at least two blows on the victim PERSON_7 – first to the face, and then with a wooden stick to the head.
2. Evidence of guilt is confirmed by victim testimony, witness statements, investigation protocols, and forensic medical expert conclusions.
3. All procedural actions during the investigation were conducted in compliance with criminal procedural legislation requirements.
Court Decision: To leave the district court’s verdict and appellate court ruling unchanged, the convict’s cassation appeal – without satisfaction.
Case No. 523/7564/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the court verdict regarding a person convicted of illegal acquisition and possession of psychotropic substance PVP.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in lower court instances’ decisions, particularly that the appellate court formally approached the defense counsel’s complaint. The key issue concerned compliance with pre-trial investigation terms, specifically the moment of ending the 72-hour period after notifying a person of suspicion. The appellate court did not provide clear and comprehensive argumentation regarding the defense’s arguments about procedural term violations.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the defense counsel’s cassation appeal, canceled the Odesa Appellate Court ruling and assigned a new review in the appellate instance.
Case No. 914/3208/23 dated 11/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring invalid the electricity supply contract by a universal service provider between LLC “Lvivenerhozbut” and LLC “SU-27”.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The contract was concluded based on the distribution system operator’s data about the universal service consumer
– The respondent actually consumed electricity and made payments
– The court believes the plaintiff did not prove grounds for declaring the contract invalid
– It is necessary to thoroughly establish the circumstances of contract conclusion and its compliance with legislation
3. Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court resolution and send the case for a new review to the appellate commercial court for additional examination of case circumstances.
Note: The court deviates from previous practice of considering similar disputes, requiring more detailed analysis of all contract conclusion circumstances.
Case No. 755/19709/23 dated 28/01/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Declaring illegal the order of SEC “Dominanta” on canceling a previous order regarding suspension of a teacher’s employment contract during martial law.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The respondent independently restored the plaintiff’s labor rights by canceling the order on employment contract suspension
– The plaintiff did not prove labor rights violation, as salary was paid during the suspension period
– The court established that the order dated October 24, 2023, was actually aimed at restoring the employee’s labor rights
3. Court Decision: Reject PERSON_1’s claim to declare the SEC “Dominanta” order illegal.
Additional Important Detail: The court recovered 5000 UAH in legal assistance costs from the plaintiff in favor of the respondent.
Case No. 991/1956/24 dated 06/02/2025
Subject ofSubject of the dispute: Challenging the ruling of the Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court on returning the defense counsel’s application for clarification of a court decision.
Main arguments of the court: First, the appellate court improperly returned the application for clarification of the court decision, as the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for such a procedure. Second, the decision was made by a single judge, whereas it should have been made by a panel of judges. Third, the criminal procedural law does not contain any restrictions on the possibility of filing an application for clarification of a court decision.
Court decision: The defense counsel’s cassation complaint was satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling was cancelled with a new hearing appointed.
Case No. 910/14341/22 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of the dispute: Dispute regarding ownership of a military town complex previously owned by the state and the land plot underneath it.
Main arguments of the court:
– The prosecutor chose an ineffective method of protecting the right by demanding recognition of the contract as invalid and cancellation of registration instead of a vindication claim
– The property owner can claim their property by filing a vindication claim without challenging previous transactions
– Acquisition of ownership of a building automatically creates grounds for transfer of rights to the land plot
– Demands to cancel registration decisions are ineffective and do not restore the violated right
Court decision: Reject the prosecutor’s original claim and the counterclaim of LLC “Darnytsia Zhylbud” as the chosen methods of protecting the right are improper.
Case No. 444/948/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court regarding sentencing a driver who caused a fatal traffic accident.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court supported the appellate court’s decision, as it is based on a comprehensive analysis of the case circumstances, particularly the convicted person who was previously not criminally prosecuted, has a family with two minor children, partially compensated damages to the victims, and sincerely repented. The court believes that the convicted person’s correction is possible without isolation from society, and the severity of consequences alone is not grounds for not applying a suspended sentence.
Court decision: Leave the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the Lviv Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 925/1577/20(925/287/23) dated 11/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring invalid the tractor sale and purchase agreement between LLC “Kolos 14” and PE “Irida” and returning the property to the liquidation mass.
Main arguments of the court:
1. JSC “Poltava-Bank”, which was not a party to the case, did not prove that the court decision directly violates its rights and interests.
2. The court established that the contested decision contains no direct statements about the bank’s rights or obligations.
3. The bank’s reference to possible future consequences for its interests is merely speculation.
Court decision: Leave the cassation complaint of JSC “Poltava-Bank” unsatisfied and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Notably, the court strictly adheres to the position of impossibility of influencing a court decision on the rights of persons who did not participate in the case.
Case No. 910/18945/23 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of the dispute: Declaring invalid the sale and purchase agreement of property rights to apartments, concluded based on electronic auction results.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The Supreme Court established that previous courts did not take into account the Antimonopoly Committee’s decision, which recognized the auction participants’ actions as anti-competitive.
2. Courts did not fully investigate evidence regarding possible distortion of auction results by participants.
3. Courts did not…We have verified the compliance of the agreement with the legislation on the protection of economic competition.
Court Decision: Annul previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a more detailed examination of the case circumstances.
Case No. 922/2242/24 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of 200,000 UAH in interest under a credit agreement between JSC “Megabank” and LLC “Kharkiv Vegetable Factory”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The credit agreement clearly defines an arbitration court for dispute resolution – Permanent Arbitration Court at the Association “Slobozhanska Perspektyva”.
2. The respondent timely filed objections against the consideration of the case in the commercial court, referring to the arbitration clause.
3. There is no evidence of impossibility of performing the arbitration agreement or its invalidity.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal of JSC “Megabank” unsatisfied, and previous court decisions unchanged.
It is important to note that the court emphasized: the arbitration clause is a free expression of will of the parties and does not limit their rights to judicial protection.
Case No. 922/939/21 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: The prosecutor challenges the decision of the Kharkiv City Council to grant a land plot to LLC “AKLOR” without conducting land auctions.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The land plot of 1.2185 hectares was granted for residential building construction, although the non-residential buildings belonging to the company occupy only 0.76% of this area
– The defendants deliberately avoided the land auction procedure by using the presence of small non-residential buildings as a formal pretext
– Such actions substantially violate the interests of the state and local community
3. Court Decision: Partially satisfy the prosecutor’s claim – declare the land lease agreement invalid and oblige the LLC to return the land plot to the city.
Case No. 758/6166/22 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of cassation appeals by the prosecutor and victim’s representative against rulings of lower instance courts in a criminal case regarding PERSON_12.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv and Kyiv Appellate Court are lawful and substantiated. The court found no grounds for satisfying the cassation appeals, as they do not contain convincing arguments that would refute previous court decisions. The panel of judges considers that the lower instance courts correctly established the case circumstances and correctly applied substantive and procedural law norms.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left previous court rulings unchanged and refused to satisfy the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and victim’s representative.
Case No. 127/19251/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of a water fund land plot of 0.7943 hectares to the communal ownership of the Vinnytsia City Council.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The land plot is located in the water fund territory (a pond is located there), therefore it could not be transferred to private ownership according to land legislation.
2. No official decision on transferring this land plot to PERSON_2 was made, and therefore the privatization documents are invalid.
3. In fact, this land plot is managed by the Vinnytsia City Council, not the Luka-Meleshkivka Village Council.
Court Decision: Satisfy the prosecutor’s claim and return the land plot to the communal ownership of the Vinnytsia City Council, canceling the state registration of private ownership rights.
Case No. 755/2788/22 dated 05/02/2025Subject of Dispute: Recovery of Debt under a Credit Agreement Concluded in 2007, from the Borrower and Guarantors.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the financial company “Dniprofinansgroup” did not lose the right of claim against the debtors, since on August 10, 2021, they entered into an additional agreement with the company “Bright Investment”, which excluded this specific credit agreement from the list of claims. The court emphasized that the replacement of the creditor does not change the essence of the obligation, and therefore the debtors must fulfill their obligations to the original creditor.
Court Decision: To cancel previous court decisions and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a detailed examination of the circumstances and the amount of debt.
Case No. 766/7293/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint by the defense counsel against the verdict of the Kherson Court of Appeal regarding a person accused of a criminal offense under Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (crime related to narcotic substances).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and the cassation complaint of the defense counsel. The court concluded that the appellate verdict is lawful and substantiated, as all procedural norms were observed, and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt is indisputable. The panel of judges found no grounds to satisfy the cassation complaint and overturn the previous decision.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation complaint of the defense counsel unsatisfied, and to leave the verdict of the Kherson Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_6 unchanged.
Case No. 904/4222/23 dated 06/02/2025
Case concerns violation of intellectual property rights to a trademark.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The plaintiff (Foundry Plant “Stolychnyi”) proved that the defendants (Individual Entrepreneur Taranova and Individual Entrepreneur Korneev) manufactured and supplied B-16 babbit ingots with marking similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
2. The defendants’ evidence did not refute the fact of intellectual property rights violation.
3. The court established the interconnectedness of the defendants’ actions – production and supply of goods with unauthorized use of the trademark.
Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – to oblige the defendants to cease violation of intellectual property rights by prohibiting the use of similar marking.
Case No. 369/12078/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining the child’s place of residence and ensuring the father’s right to communicate with his son.
Main Arguments of the Court: Firstly, the court emphasized the priority of the child’s best interests, highlighting the importance of maintaining the child’s connection with both parents. Secondly, it was noted that the parent living separately has the right to personal communication with the child, and the other parent cannot obstruct such communication. Thirdly, the court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court did not provide sufficient arguments for limiting the father’s right to communicate with his son.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling in the part of refusing to secure the claim, and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 910/19061/21 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – challenging the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, which was made regarding an audit firm.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions have procedural violations. In particular, the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate the circumstances of the case and did not provide a complete legal assessment of the plaintiff’s arguments. The Supreme Court believes that it is necessary to return the case for a new review for a more detailed examination of all circumstances and providing a comprehensiveSupreme Court Decision on Legal Assessment
The Supreme Court decided to cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 278/2/23 dated 06/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Exemption from criminal liability for possession of a psychotropic substance (amphetamine) based on treatment for drug addiction.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court noted that to be exempted from criminal liability, a person must be officially diagnosed with “drug addiction” by a medical consultative commission. Second, the available treatment certificate does not contain a clear conclusion from such a commission. Third, the court emphasized that modern medical terminology has replaced the concept of “drug addiction” with “dependence syndrome”, but the procedure for establishing the diagnosis remains unchanged.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court cancelled previous court decisions and scheduled a new review of the case in the court of first instance to further clarify all circumstances of diagnosis establishment.
Case No. 216/3169/22 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: A serviceman PERSON_7 refused to execute a combat order during martial law.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– Serviceman PERSON_7 deliberately refused to obey the commander’s order on June 25, 2022, in the area of Potyomkyne settlement, violating the statutory requirements of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
– The court established that the refusal was conscious and motivated by unwillingness to fulfill the constitutional duty to defend the Motherland.
– Evidence of guilt is confirmed by witness testimonies, materials of official investigation, and other documents.
3. Court Decision: Uphold the verdict of previous instances, finding PERSON_7 guilty of committing a criminal offense under Part 1 of Art. 28, Part 4 of Art. 402 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentencing to 6 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 404/8741/21 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of the first instance court verdict regarding the conviction of PERSON_6 for illegal sale and possession of narcotic drugs.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court discovered procedural violations in appellate proceedings, in particular, insufficient motivation for qualifying actions as “repeated” and lack of proper assessment of procedural circumstances of entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.
2. The Supreme Court drew attention that conducting covert investigative actions regarding a repeated crime without entering relevant information into the register may have procedural consequences.
3. The court pointed to the need for a more detailed analysis of case circumstances during a new appellate review.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and schedule a new review in the appellate court, as well as choose a preventive measure in the form of detention.
Case No. 622/1129/18 dated 10/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court in a criminal case about abuse of official powers by two persons.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully examined the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that the previous appellate court ruling requires review. The court believes that procedural violations were made in the previous court proceedings that could have affected the objectivity and completeness of establishing case circumstances. The panel of judges concluded that the case needs to be returned for a new appellate review to more thoroughly examine all circumstances of criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, cancelled the previous ruling of the Poltava Appellate Court, and scheduled a new review in the court.
