Case No. 521/16020/17 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of the value of a limited liability company’s share of 10.978% of the authorized capital, inflation losses, and 3% per annum.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court established that this dispute is corporate and should be considered in economic, rather than civil court proceedings.
2. The basis for this conclusion was that the dispute arose regarding the corporate rights of an heir after the death of a company participant, and does not directly concern inheritance legal relations.
3. The court emphasized that corporate rights arise for the heir from the moment of inheritance acceptance, which includes a share in the company’s authorized capital.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and closed the proceedings, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to the economic court.
Case No. 947/16602/24 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim for moral damages against the aggressor state of the Russian Federation in connection with violation of property rights to real estate as a result of armed aggression.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the plaintiff falls under paragraph 22 of part one of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” and is exempt from paying court fees in cases against the aggressor state regarding damage compensation.
2. The appellate court unreasonably demanded additional evidence of the plaintiff’s status and returned the appellate complaint, thereby limiting the person’s right of access to justice.
3. The plaintiff filed a claim for moral damages in connection with violation of property rights due to the Russian Federation’s armed aggression, which fully meets the conditions for exemption from court fees.
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s ruling and refer the case for consideration to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 755/8571/19 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of property rights to non-residential and residential premises in a building at the address ADDRESS_1.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the building was put into operation only on July 27, 2022, after a significant period from the planned delivery date.
2. The courts did not verify the defendant’s belonging, as the object’s customer is another company – LLC “Yuga-Group”.
3. No proper assessment was given to the arguments about the existence of a mortgage encumbrance on the disputed property.
4. The appellate court incorrectly concluded about recognizing property rights, without taking into account the Supreme Court’s legal position on protecting investors’ rights.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and send the case for new consideration to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 520/6366/13-c dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of ownership of 1/4 part of a residential house by law of inheritance after the death of PERSON_4.
Main Court Arguments:
1. PERSON_3 is not a first-order heir after the death of brother PERSON_4, as she is his sister.
2. There is no evidence that PERSON_3 actually entered into management or possession of inherited property within six months after her brother’s death.
3. The court decision does not contain conclusions about the rights and obligations of PERSON_3, therefore she has no right to appeal.
Court Decision: Leave PERSON_3’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the ruling of the Odesa Appellate Court unchanged.
Case No. 459/1985/18 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal of a verdict against a person who committed several thefts in 2018.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the statute of limitations has not expired.Here is the translation:
1. [No text provided for this section]
2. The court took into account changes in legislation regarding the qualification of petty theft and recognized that the theft episode from May 29, 2018, cannot be qualified as a criminal offense due to the low value of the stolen property.
3. The appellate court substantiated the imposition of actual punishment by the increased public danger of the person who immediately after the previous conviction committed new crimes.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the cassation complaint, closing the criminal proceedings for the theft episode from May 29, 2018, and leaving the punishment for other episodes unchanged.
Case No. 750/1281/24 from 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Evasion of a conscript from military service during mobilization.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that the appellate court improperly substantiated the release of the person from serving a suspended sentence. The court drew attention that under martial law, such a decision may negatively impact military discipline and combat readiness of units, and create an impression of impunity. Moreover, the defendant’s medical arguments regarding unsuitability for service were not convincing, as the military medical commission recognized him as fit.
Court Decision: Revoke the appellate court’s ruling and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance with a more detailed analysis of the case circumstances.
Case No. 461/3559/23 from 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Counting the period of stay in pre-trial detention facilities towards the sentence of the convicted PERSON_6.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court improperly returned the convicted person’s appeal, violating his right to appeal the court decision. The court emphasized that the convicted person is an independent subject of appeal and had the right to file his own appeal, regardless of the previous complaint by his defender. Moreover, the ground for returning the complaint used by the appellate court is not provided for in procedural legislation.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation complaint, revoked the ruling of the Lviv Appellate Court, and assigned a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 372/3937/23 from 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case about a traffic accident with serious consequences, committed by a motorcycle driver while intoxicated.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that PERSON_8 grossly violated traffic rules, driving a motorcycle while intoxicated (1.12 per mille) and significantly exceeding the speed (122-132 km/h instead of the allowed 50 km/h). Second, due to these violations, a traffic accident occurred with serious consequences – the death of a pedestrian and injury to other road users. Third, the court took into account the person of the guilty party, who partially admitted guilt, was previously not convicted, but did not show genuine remorse.
Court Decision: Leave unchanged the district court’s verdict on imposing a punishment of 7 years of imprisonment for PERSON_8 with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for 8 years.
Case No. 444/1807/19 from 22/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition as illegal the decision of the Zhovkva City Council on granting permission to develop technical documentation and a state act for ownership of a land plot previously belonging to a military town.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognizing the decision as illegal) is ineffective, as it does not lead to real restoration of violated rights.
2. The appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim for recovering the land plot, rather than challenging the decisions of authorities.Here is the translation of the provided text:
3. The land plot was transferred to the ownership of a person who purchased a residential house, which corresponds to the principle of unity of the legal fate of the land plot and the building located on it.
Court Decision: Modify the motivational parts of previous court decisions, leaving the operative part on the refusal to satisfy the claim of the Yavoriv Quarters and Exploitation District Subdivision unchanged.
Case No. 591/1086/23 dated 05/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under the purchase and sale agreement of property rights to an apartment between PJSC “Sumbud” and PERSON_1.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the fact that the appellate court unreasonably did not take into account the assignment of claim agreement, which could confirm the fact of apartment payment.
– The court established that there is a certificate from the developer about 100% fulfillment of obligations by the buyer, which the appellate court groundlessly recognized as inadmissible evidence.
– The Supreme Court pointed out procedural violations of the appellate court in evaluating evidence.
3. Court Decision: Annulled the resolution of the appellate court and referred the case for a new review to the appellate instance for additional examination of circumstances.
Case No. 675/307/23 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation complaint of the defense counsel against the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court in a criminal case about a criminal offense under Part 2 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal production, manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation or sending of narcotic drugs without the purpose of sale).
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 court correctly evaluated the evidence and adhered to all procedural norms when issuing the previous ruling. The arguments of the defense counsel do not contain grounds for cancellation or modification of the court decision, as they do not refute the factual circumstances of the case and the legal assessment of the convicted person’s actions.
Court Decision: Leave the ruling of the Khmelnytskyi Appellate Court unchanged and the cassation complaint of the defense counsel – without satisfaction.
Case No. 990/74/24 dated 13/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine on refusal to recommend PERSON_1 for appointment as a judge of the Skvyra District Court of Kyiv Region.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The HQCJ decision did not contain specific facts that would unequivocally confirm doubts about the compliance of the candidate’s lifestyle with declared income.
2. The Commission did not properly verify the family income level and did not provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to provide additional explanations or documents.
3. The plaintiff’s explanations about living at the expense of pensioner parents and temporary stay in her sister’s family during the war were not refuted by the HQCJ.
Court Decision: Leave unchanged the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court on cancellation of the HQCJ decision and satisfaction of PERSON_1’s claim.
Case No. 910/3368/24 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of an application for approval of the debtor’s rehabilitation plan before opening bankruptcy proceedings.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Supreme Court established that the rehabilitation plan proposed by the debtor does not meet legislative requirements and cannot be approved.
2. The court detailed the procedural aspects of court costs distribution, particularly legal assistance costs, guided by principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and justification.
3. It was determined that the claimed legal services costs of 30,000 UAH are inflated, therefore the court reduced them to 20,000 UAH.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the applications of LLC “SVP PLUS” and LLC “Group Seb Ukraine” about rDistribution of court costs, recovering from the debtor (LLC “Diesa”) court costs in their favor.
Case No. 910/7369/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Recognition of monetary claims of the tax authority in the bankruptcy case of the company “TAN-2001” for the amount of 1,362,681 UAH.
Main arguments of the court: First, the court established that the tax authority correctly accrued VAT debt due to the company’s failure to provide primary documents during the inspection. Second, the debtor’s reference to martial law as a reason for inability to provide documents was deemed unfounded by the court, as Kyiv was not an occupied territory. Third, documents registered in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices do not automatically confirm the right to a tax credit.
Court decision: Satisfy the cassation appeal of the tax authority and recognize its monetary claims against the debtor for the amount of 1,362,681 UAH, of which 1,090,145 UAH is VAT debt (third priority) and 272,536 UAH is penalty sanctions (sixth priority).
Case No. 520/14132/18 dated 26/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Claim to establish the fact of cohabitation, declare investment and donation agreements invalid, recognize property ownership.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The court concluded that the plaintiff’s chosen method of protecting rights is inappropriate. In particular:
– The claim to establish the fact of cohabitation without marriage cannot be satisfied, as PERSON_3 was in another marriage at the time of investment.
– Declaring the investment agreement invalid in terms of defining the investor does not correspond to the nature of legal relations.
– The plaintiff did not provide evidence of violation of her rights by the donation agreement.
The court considers a vindicatory claim for recovery of property share or its value to be an effective method of protection.
3. Court decision: Reject the claim due to the selection of an inappropriate method of protecting rights.
The court decision demonstrates a principled position that the method of protecting rights must be effective and actually restore violated rights.
Case No. 761/14878/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Declaring orders of dismissal and reinstatement of an obstetrician-gynecologist invalid.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court found that previous court decisions of the appellate instance were unlawful. The court took into account the principles of adversarial proceedings and dispositiveness, particularly regarding the distribution of court costs. It was recognized that the initial decision of the district court to reinstate the plaintiff at work was correct, as the Kyiv Regional Perinatal Center did not provide convincing evidence to the contrary.
Court decision: Appellate court rulings were canceled, the district court’s decision to reinstate PERSON_1 in the position was upheld, and court costs were recovered in her favor.
Case No. 690/522/22 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement and challenging the legality of collecting commissions for providing a financial instrument.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The Supreme Court established that at the time of concluding the credit agreement (2006), legislation did not directly prohibit setting commissions for providing financial services. The court noted that it is impossible to apply laws that came into force later (in 2011) to legal relations that arose earlier. This is a fundamentally important conclusion about the non-retroactivity of legislative acts.
3. Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied PrivatBank’s cassation appeal and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court for additional examination of the circumstances of collecting commissions for providing a financial instrument.Case No. 679/1103/23 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of credit debt from an individual under a credit line agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court drew attention to the disproportionately large amount of accrued interest, which violates the principles of fairness and good faith.
2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the consumer is the weaker party in the contract and requires special protection, especially in the context of credit legal relations.
3. The court pointed out the lack of proper justification for the debt calculation by the creditor and the need for a detailed analysis of all payments made by the borrower.
Court Decision: To cancel the resolution of the appellate court and refer the case for a new review to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the case and verify the validity of the accrued debt.
Case No. 761/7022/18 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Foreclosure on the subject of mortgage under a credit agreement concluded between a bank and an individual.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court determined the jurisdiction of the dispute, considering the subject composition of the main obligation. Second, it established that the parties to the main obligation are a legal entity (PrivatBank) and an individual, therefore the case is subject to consideration under civil proceedings. Third, the court was guided by previous legal positions of the Supreme Court, which indicate that the replacement of parties in a security obligation does not affect the determination of judicial jurisdiction.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint without satisfaction and the resolution of the appellate court unchanged, confirming the need to consider the case under civil proceedings.
Case No. 243/8566/19 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal proceedings against a group of persons accused of creating a criminal organization and robbery.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in previous court decisions that affected the correctness of the qualification of the accused’s actions. The court concluded that the appellate court incorrectly assessed the evidence and legal qualification of the incriminated acts. The panel of judges considers it necessary to return the case for a new appellate review for a more detailed study of the case circumstances.
Court Decision: To cancel the previous verdict of the Dnipro Appellate Court and assign a new review in the appellate instance, simultaneously choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for all accused for a period of 60 days.
Case No. 759/19971/20 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Closure of criminal proceedings due to pre-trial investigation terms regarding PERSON_7, who was accused of a number of crimes.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court prematurely closed the criminal proceedings, not taking into account key circumstances – the date of the pre-trial investigation start (January 31, 2016), facts of investigation term extension, temporary suspension of proceedings, and familiarization of the defense side with case materials. The court emphasized that provisions on closing proceedings due to exhaustion of pre-trial investigation terms do not have retroactive effect and are applied only to cases initiated after March 16, 2018.
Court Decision: To cancel the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court and assign a new review of the case in the appellate instance.
Case No. 466/4814/23 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of paternity for a child who is an orphan.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Judicial molecular genetic examination confirmed with 99.9999% probability that the plaintiff is the biological father of the child.
2. Recognition of paternity corresponds to the best interestsHere is the translation of the provided legal text:
himself of the child-orphan, as it gives her the opportunity to know her biological father.
3. The guardianship and custody authority is a proper defendant in the case of establishing paternity, as it takes care of the placement of orphaned children.
Court decision: To leave unchanged the decision of previous instances about recognizing the plaintiff as the child’s father.
Case No. 761/26620/20 dated 12/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Reclaiming an apartment from PERSON_3 in favor of PERSON_1 due to unlawful acquisition of real estate ownership.
Main arguments of the court:
1. LLC “K-Collect” acquired ownership of the apartment without concluding a separate agreement on satisfying the mortgagee’s requirements, which is a mandatory condition under the mortgage agreement.
2. The apartment was removed from the plaintiff’s possession against his will, as the document on transfer of ownership provided for in the contract was not concluded.
3. Subsequent alienation of the apartment by PERSON_2 and PERSON_3 does not legalize the unlawful acquisition of ownership by the original acquirer.
Court decision: Reclaim the apartment from PERSON_3 in favor of PERSON_1 as property that was removed from the owner’s possession against their will.
Case No. 725/1590/22 dated 04/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation appeal by the prosecutor against an acquittal of a person accused of an improper benefit by an official.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court identified significant procedural violations in previous court decisions that make it impossible to make a legal and substantiated decision. The court concluded that the appellate court did not properly examine the case materials and evidence. The panel of judges considers it necessary to return the case for a new review to more thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation complaint, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and appointed a new review of the case.
Case No. 760/4638/23 dated 26/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of dispute: Dismissal of employee PERSON_1 from the position at the Social Insurance Fund during reorganization and merger with the Pension Fund of Ukraine.
Main arguments of the court:
: The Supreme Court for the first time changed the approach to considering such cases, determining that disputes about dismissal of employees during reorganization of state funds should be considered in administrative, not civil proceedings. The court established that since the Social Insurance Fund was merged with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, which is a public authority, labor disputes regarding employees fall under administrative jurisdiction.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and close the proceedings with an explanation to the plaintiff of the right to apply to the administrative court.
Case No. 688/4944/23 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the fact of cohabitation of a man and woman without marriage registration to receive inheritance after a deceased serviceman.
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, there is a real dispute about the right to inherited property between the deceased’s mother (PERSON_2) and the applicant (PERSON_1). Secondly, the deceased’s mother challenges her own statement of renunciation of inheritance, indicating a potential conflict of interest. Thirdly, establishing the fact of cohabitation directly affects inheritance rights and social assistance.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint of PERSON_1 unsatisfied and supported the appellate court’s decision to leave the application without consideration, as there is a dispute about the right that must be resolved through contentious proceedings.
Case No. 722/1818/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Criminal proProceedings Regarding Theft of Funds Committed by PERSON_7 During Martial Law.
Main Court Arguments: The Appellate Court thoroughly analyzed all available evidence and concluded that they do not confirm PERSON_7’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses did not see how the theft occurred, testimonies were contradictory, and written evidence did not contain unequivocal proof of the accused’s involvement in the crime. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence of PERSON_7’s guilt.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Chernivtsi Appellate Court’s ruling to close criminal proceedings against PERSON_7 due to unproven guilt.
Case No. 344/14321/23 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation in connection with publications on the social network “Facebook”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Disseminated information constitutes value judgments, not factual statements, and therefore cannot be deemed unreliable.
2. The plaintiff, as a public figure, must be aware of the possibility of increased criticism and public attention to their activities.
3. Using photographs previously published by the plaintiff in open access is lawful.
4. Respondents’ statements contain personal opinion and criticism that do not violate the plaintiff’s rights.
Court Decision: Reject PERSON_1’s claim for protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation.
Case No. 757/7499/17-ц dated 12/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging actions of a state executor regarding opening enforcement proceedings based on LUMIL INVESTMENTS LLP’s application for compulsory execution of a court ruling on securing a claim.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The state executor’s resolution dated April 22, 2020, on changing registration data is an integral part of the resolution on opening enforcement proceedings dated October 2, 2019.
2. The Appellate Court prematurely left PrivatBank’s complaint without consideration, without properly verifying the legality of the state executor’s actions.
3. The appellate instance court did not take into account that the appeal period should be calculated from the moment of changes made on April 22, 2020, about which the bank learned on April 27, 2020.
Court Decision: PrivatBank’s cassation complaint is satisfied, the appellate court’s ruling is canceled, and the case is referred for a new review to the appellate instance court.
Case No. 990/403/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding a judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Region’s compliance with the occupied position.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The HQCJ decision is an individual act that can only be appealed by the judge to whom it relates.
2. The person who filed the complaint (not a judge) has no right to appeal such a decision, as it does not directly concern their rights and interests.
3. Submitting reports about a judge during qualification evaluation does not automatically grant the right to appeal the HQCJ decision.
Court Decision: Leave the appellate complaint unsatisfied and the first instance court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 522/18784/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case of unlawful deprivation of liberty and rape of wife.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court established that PERSON_7 intentionally deprived his wife of liberty by blocking her in a car and applying physical violence. Second, the court proved the fact of rape without voluntary consent, confirmed by her consistent testimony and expert conclusions. Third, evidence provided by the prosecution was recognized by the court as relevant, admissible, and interconnected.
Court Decision: The Supreme CourtHere is the translation of the text:
He upheld the previous court decisions and found PERSON_7 guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty and rape, sentencing him to 8 years of imprisonment.
Case No. 496/476/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of the daughter living with her mother at the time of inheritance opening and recognizing other heirs as not having accepted the inheritance.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court drew attention that the place of registration does not always mean the actual place of residence, and for inheritance, it is important to prove the actual permanent residence. The courts of previous instances incorrectly approached the assessment of evidence, not properly investigating the documents confirming the plaintiff’s place of residence, and prematurely denied the satisfaction of the claim.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decisions of previous instances and sent the case for a new review to the appellate court for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances.
Case No. 278/5005/23 dated 26/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a land lease agreement for an area of 87.6767 hectares, which the Teterivka Village Council transferred to PERSON_1 without conducting land auctions.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The prosecutor had the right to apply to the court in the interests of the state, as the Teterivka Village Council did not take measures to protect the land plot
– The land plot was included in the list for auctions but then transferred to PERSON_1 for lease without conducting auctions
– The lease agreement contained a condition for gardening on the entire area of 87.6767 hectares, which contradicts the legislation (only 0.6 hectares are allowed)
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and sent the case for a new review to clarify additional circumstances regarding the land auctions.
Key Feature: The court drew attention to the need to establish the fact of the actual start of land auctions.
Case No. 543/225/23 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a private executor regarding the seizure of the debtor’s salary account.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The debtor’s account has a special usage mode, as it is intended for receiving salary
– Seizing such an account violates the constitutional rights of a citizen to payment for work
– The executor is obligated to remove seizure from accounts with a special usage mode after receiving appropriate documents
– Collection from salary can be carried out only within the limits prescribed by law
3. Court Decision: To leave the previous court decisions unchanged, which recognized the actions of the private executor regarding the seizure of the salary account as unlawful.
Case No. 740/4350/22 dated 18/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt for thermal energy from apartment owners in the amount of 14,581.01 UAH.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court adheres to the legal position that all property disputes where the debtor in the bankruptcy case is a party should be considered exclusively by the commercial court handling the bankruptcy case.
2. Since LLC “NizhynTeploMerezhі” is in bankruptcy proceedings, the case for debt recovery should be considered in the commercial court, not in the civil court.
3. The court established that the court decision in the case was issued after the opening of the bankruptcy case of LLC “NizhynTeploMerezhі”, therefore, the Commercial Court of Chernihiv Oblast is the court established by law to consider this dispute.
Court Decision: To leave the cassation appeal of LLC “NizhynTeploMerezhі” without satisfaction, the resolution of the appellate court – unchanged.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The disputed house and land plot are joint marital property, not the personal property of the father.
2. The plaintiff proved the fact of permanent residence with the father at the time of his death through records in the House Book and passport, which confirms her right to inheritance.
3. The defendant did not provide evidence that the plaintiff actually lived elsewhere, therefore her registration is considered proof of joint residence.
Court Decision: Partially satisfy the claim, recognizing the plaintiff’s ownership right to 5/8 of the residential house and land plot, and the defendant’s right to 3/8 of the property.
Case No. 381/1818/21 dated 22/01/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty and moral damages from the developer for violation of construction project commissioning deadlines.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that the parties clearly defined the project completion deadline as December 31, 2019, despite the wording “approximate deadline”.
2. The buyer fully fulfilled their obligations by paying the full cost of property rights to the apartment.
3. The developer delayed the project commissioning by 609 days, which is grounds for collecting the penalty provided for in the contract.
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on collecting 223,807.50 UAH in penalties and 10,000 UAH in moral damages from LLC “Terra Paradise” in favor of the buyer.
Case No. 757/7506/21-c dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of inflation losses and three percent per annum from JSC CB “PrivatBank” for untimely return of a bank deposit.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The bank violated its obligations under the bank deposit agreement by not returning the funds to the depositor on time.
2. Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides for accrual of inflation losses and three percent per annum for monetary obligation delay.
3. The date of obligation fulfillment is considered the moment of funds crediting to the depositor’s account, not their transfer by the bank.
Court Decision: Uphold the previous instances’ decision on collecting inflation losses and three percent per annum from JSC CB “PrivatBank” in favor of PERSON_1.
Case No. 5023/4477/12 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of the value of real estate (three-room apartment) sold at auction during bankruptcy proceedings under an invalid contract.
Main Court Arguments:
1. Since the original purchase and sale contract was declared invalid, and the property has already been transferred to a bona fide acquirer, the only way to protect the debtor’s rights is to recover monetary compensation.
2. The Civil Code of Ukraine provides that if it is impossible to return the property in kind, the acquirer must compensate for its value.
3. The court took into account that the complainant did not refute the established property value of 1,017,100 UAH, therefore considers the recovery of this amount legitimate.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal, leaving the commercial appellate court’s resolution unchanged, i.e., recover 977,100 UAH from the defendant in favor of the debtor as compensation for the lost real estate.
Case No. 314/2017/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Labor dispute about declaring disciplinary actions and dismissal of a kindergarten director as unlawful.
Main Court Arguments: First, the court established that the first disciplinary action in the form of a reprimand was imposed illegally, as the fact of prolonged absence from the workplace was not proven. Second, the facts of violations in the dismissal order were not supported by proper evidence.Third, the absence of systematic violations excludes the possibility of dismissing an employee under paragraph 3 of part one of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of previous instances on reinstating the employee in the position, recovering average earnings for the period of forced absence, and compensation for moral damages.
Case No. 466/8669/20 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of an apartment as transferred to mortgage and foreclosure on the mortgage subject under the credit agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The mortgage on the apartment remains valid, even if there was a temporary absence of a record in the register.
2. The alienation of the apartment occurred without the bank’s consent, during the validity of a court decision declaring the mortgage agreement invalid, which was subsequently canceled.
3. The court established the bad faith actions of the original owner, who attempted to evade credit obligations by transferring the apartment to another person.
Court Decision: Recognize the apartment as transferred to mortgage and foreclose on the mortgage subject, but with suspension of the decision’s execution during the period of martial law.
The Court deviated from previous practice regarding the interpretation of the mortgagee’s rights under conditions of temporary absence of a mortgage record.
Case No. 501/2108/14-ц dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal on refusal to open appellate proceedings for an application to restore the time limit for appealing the ruling of the Illichivsk City Court on issuing a duplicate of the writ of execution.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Appellate Court incorrectly applied procedural law norms, as it did not investigate the reasons for missing the appeal time limit.
2. It was established that PERSON_2 was not properly notified about the court session where the application for issuing a duplicate writ of execution was considered.
3. The absence of proper notification of a person about a court session is a violation of their right to a fair trial.
Court Decision: Satisfy the cassation complaint, cancel the ruling of the Odesa Court of Appeal, and refer the case for consideration to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 361/1506/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the actions of a state executor regarding the calculation of alimony debt, specifically, taking into account the additional remuneration of a police officer during martial law.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. According to legislation, alimony shall be collected from all types of the debtor’s income, including additional remuneration of police officers during martial law.
2. Additional remuneration of 30,000 UAH has a permanent nature and is part of the monetary support structure for police officers.
3. The legislator did not intend to exclude additional remuneration from alimony calculation, as this would contradict the child’s interests.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled previous court decisions and denied the debtor’s complaint, confirming the legitimacy of taking additional remuneration into account when calculating alimony.
Case No. 185/7875/21 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the court verdict regarding a female driver who caused a fatal traffic accident.
Main Arguments of the Court: The court thoroughly analyzed the case circumstances and concluded that the imposed punishment is fair. It considered the severity of the crime (death of the victim), the convict’s personality (widow, has a minor child, positively characterized), and the circumstances of the offense. The Appellate Court assigned the minimum punishment within the law’s sanction, indicating compliance with the principle of punishment individualization.
Court Decision: The defense lawyer’s cassation complaint wasReject without satisfaction, leave the verdict of the Dnipro Court of Appeal unchanged.
Case No. 401/2766/21 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Case on Intentional Infliction of Minor Bodily Injury by a Forester PERSON_6 to the Victim PERSON_8.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that PERSON_6 was in the position of a forester at the time of the incident and had the status of an official of a law enforcement agency.
2. Evidence in the case, including testimony of the victim, witnesses, and forensic medical examination, confirms the fact of intentional bodily injury.
3. The forensic medical examination revealed a concussion and a hematoma in the left temporal region of the victim, which is qualified as a minor bodily injury.
Court Decision: Leave the local court’s verdict unchanged, partially satisfying the cassation appeal in terms of the civil claim and appointing a new hearing of this part in the civil proceedings order.
Case No. 1/B-294 dated 19/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Continuation of the rehabilitation procedure for Open Joint Stock Company “Ternopil Association “Texterno” and approval of changes to the rehabilitation plan.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The full-scale war in Ukraine complicated the implementation of the company’s rehabilitation plan.
2. During the rehabilitation, the company partially repaid debts and continues to pay taxes.
3. An investor is helping the company restore solvency.
4. The creditors’ committee supported the continuation of rehabilitation and considers it a real way to restore the financial condition of the enterprise.
Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service, continuing the rehabilitation procedure for another 6 months until 03.02.2025.
Case No. 930/623/22 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Proceedings against Driver PERSON_6, who caused a traffic accident with serious bodily injuries to the victim.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court’s decision to declare inadmissible the evidence of the driver’s state of alcohol intoxication. The court indicated that the procedure for obtaining biological samples complied with regulatory requirements, no rights of the person were violated, and the expert conclusion on the presence of 2.7 per mille of ethyl alcohol in the blood should be accepted as admissible evidence.
Court Decision: Cancel the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal and appoint a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 446/2076/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute – Divorce between spouses who are not actually living together.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the appellate court incorrectly returned the appellate appeal of PERSON_2, as the ruling on suspension of proceedings in the case is subject to independent appeal. Second, the court was guided by the principles of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular the right to a fair trial. Third, the Supreme Court believes that procedural decisions on granting time for reconciliation and suspension of proceedings are drawn up by one act and cannot be considered separately.
Court Decision – Satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the ruling of the appellate court and transfer the case for resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 308/12227/13-ц dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of a real estate purchase and sale agreement and recovery of this property from the owner.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court violated procedural norms, as it did not ensure proper notification of case participants about the date, time, and place of the court session.In particular, representatives of PERSON_5 and PERSON_7 were not properly notified about the court hearing that took place on September 24, 2024. The court emphasized that the right to a public court hearing provides the opportunity for parties to participate in the court session, for which they must be timely and properly notified.
Court decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeal dated September 24, 2024, and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 645/1040/19 dated 05/02/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recovery from non-residential building owners of unjustly retained funds in the form of rent for land use without concluding a lease agreement.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Defendants are owners of a non-residential building but did not properly arrange land use rights
– Actual land use without a lease agreement is grounds for recovering funds in the amount of rent
– Payment of land tax does not exempt from the obligation to pay rent
– Rent calculation was made in accordance with the normative monetary valuation of city lands
3. Court decision: Uphold previous court rulings on recovering unjustly retained funds of 437,395.11 UAH from each defendant.
Case No. 361/717/13-ц dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the actions of a state executor regarding opening enforcement proceedings after the statutory time limit for presenting an executive sheet for execution.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The legislator does not consider missing the deadline for filing a complaint against the executor’s actions as grounds for refusing satisfaction of the complaint, but only as grounds for leaving the complaint without consideration.
2. The appellate court prematurely concluded about missing the deadline without determining when the person learned or should have learned about the violation of their rights.
3. The court did not take into account the debtor’s arguments that they only learned about the enforcement proceedings on April 16, 2024, while reviewing the case materials.
Court decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and refer the case for a new review to the appellate court.
Case No. 466/5832/22 dated 11/02/2025
Subject of dispute – prosecutor’s cassation complaint against the Lviv Court of Appeal ruling in a criminal case of robbery (Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
The court carefully analyzed the prosecutor’s arguments and concluded that there are no grounds for canceling the previous ruling. The court took into account all procedural aspects of the case and established circumstances of the criminal proceedings. The panel of judges was convinced that the appellate court’s decision is lawful and well-founded.
The Supreme Court left the prosecutor’s cassation complaint unsatisfied and the Lviv Court of Appeal ruling unchanged.
Case No. 990/92/22 dated 27/02/2025
The case concerns challenging the dismissal of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights due to the expiration of the five-year term of office.
The court carefully analyzed the plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that the dismissal was completely legal, in accordance with part six of Article 5 of the relevant law. The judges took into account that the term of office is clearly defined by law, and the dismissal procedure was followed. No violations of rights or illegal actions by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine were established.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appellate complaint unsatisfied and supported the previous decision of the Administrative Cassation Court to refuse satisfaction of the claim.
