Case No. 372/5214/23 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Removal of Obstacles in Land Plot Use and Fence Relocation According to Established Land Plot Boundaries.
Key Court Arguments:
– The plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of violation of her land plot use rights
– Land plot boundary establishment acts contain contradictory data
– The defendant proved that the size of his land plot corresponds to established cadastral data
– The court may initiate expert examination on its own initiative, but in this case it was not necessary
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, previous court decisions remain unchanged.
Case No. 824/131/23 dated 03/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging Actions of a Private Executor Regarding Recusal Ruling and Return of Enforcement Document to the Claimant.
Key Court Arguments: Kyiv Court of Appeal returned the complaint without consideration, believing that it did not specify details about participants’ electronic cabinets. The Supreme Court established that such information was actually present in the complaint, therefore returning the complaint was premature and unjustified. The court noted that the appellate court did not properly analyze the complaint’s content and groundlessly applied the procedural norm for document return.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the appellate complaint, canceled the Kyiv Court of Appeal ruling and referred the case back for resolving the issue of opening proceedings.
Case No. 753/10632/22 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Right to Mandatory Inheritance Share after Father’s Death.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The Supreme Court clearly defined that to receive a mandatory inheritance share, an adult must be officially recognized as disabled, i.e., have disability status.
2. Public law norms (regarding pension insurance or education) cannot expand civil law interpretation of inheritance.
3. The fact of full-time education and receiving survivor’s pension is not grounds for obtaining a mandatory inheritance share.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court decision and upheld the first instance court ruling, which denied the plaintiff’s claim for mandatory inheritance share recognition.
Case No. 127/18888/20 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal Proceedings Regarding Incitement to Provide Unlawful Benefit to an Official and Fraud.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The court established that PERSON_8 together with other persons actively persuaded PERSON_9 to provide an unlawful benefit of 650 USD allegedly for closing a criminal proceeding.
2. Evidence of guilt is confirmed by victim testimony, covert investigative action protocols documenting conspiracy and money transfer details.
3. The convicted person consciously performed the role of an “expert” who supposedly…Translation:
May influence the course of the examination and close the criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: Leave the local court’s verdict and the appellate court’s ruling unchanged, cassation complaints – without satisfaction.
Case No. 910/17727/23 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of dispute – recovery of monetary funds between Limited Liability Company “Ovid Wind” and State Enterprise “Guaranteed Buyer”.
The court partially satisfied the cassation complaint of SE “Guaranteed Buyer”, as in the previous case review by the appellate court, the circumstances of the case were incorrectly determined and the parties’ legal relations regarding recovery of principal debt, interest, and inflation losses were inaccurately established.
The Supreme Court decided to cancel the resolution of the Northern Appellate Commercial Court in terms of resolving the claims and refer the case for a new review to the appellate instance for a more detailed examination of the dispute circumstances.
Case No. 908/403/15-G dated 04/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the state executor’s resolution on returning the enforcement document to the claimant in a case of debt recovery from SE “Artemvuhillia” in favor of JSC “First Ukrainian International Bank”.
Main court arguments: The court established that the debtor’s vehicles were actually lost in 2014 due to the occupation of Horlivka city in Donetsk region, and not due to inability to locate them within a year. The state executor unjustifiably returned the enforcement document to the claimant, as the debtor has no property that can be seized, and the measures taken to locate the property were unsuccessful.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the previous court decisions unchanged and rejected the cassation complaint of the enforcement division.
Case No. 753/8006/20 dated 12/02/2025
Brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Bank’s claim to recover an apartment that left its possession based on a canceled court decision.
2. Main court arguments:
– The bank (PJSC “MTB Bank”) did not prove it is the legal owner of the apartment
– The bank (PJSC “CB “Center”) effectively demonstrated its will to terminate rights to the apartment by letter dated 14.09.2017
– The bank wrote off the apartment from its balance on 15.12.2017
– Cancellation of court decisions on 29.05.2018 cannot be an automatic basis for property return
3. Court decision: Deny the bank’s claim to recover the apartment from unauthorized possession.
The court professionally and thoroughly analyzed all case circumstances, examined evidence, and reached a well-founded conclusion about the lack of grounds for satisfying the bank’s claim.
Case No. 344/15512/21 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Review of cassation complaints regarding criminal proceedings about torture, illegal deprivation of liberty, and violation of housing inviolability.
Main court arguments: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in previous court decisions, particularly in the appellate case review. The court believes that the appellate court improperly examined the case circumstances and did not provide a comprehensive legal assessment of the provided evidenThe Judicial Board concluded that it is necessary to return the case for a repeated review to the appellate court for a more thorough examination of all circumstances of the criminal proceedings.
Court Decision: Cassation complaints are partially satisfied, the appellate court ruling is revoked, and a new review in the appellate court is appointed.
Case No. 522/2922/16-ц dated 26/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for property and moral damages caused to a person as a result of kidnapping and torture by unidentified military servicemen.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The case lacks indisputable evidence that specifically military servicemen from a particular military unit committed unlawful actions against the plaintiff.
2. Despite the presence of bodily injuries and psychological trauma to the plaintiff, a direct causal link between the servicemen’s actions and the damage caused has not been established.
3. Criminal proceedings regarding the kidnapping have not yet been concluded, and the identities of the offenders have not been determined.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the appellate court’s decision and upheld the district court’s decision to reject the claim for damages.
Case No. 910/3748/20 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Recognition as unlawful and invalid of a transaction regarding the transfer of buyer’s rights and obligations, recognition of ownership rights, and recovery of shares.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that PERSON_1’s claims have no legal grounds. The panel of judges considered all provided evidence and established that the challenged transactions were carried out in compliance with all necessary legal procedures. The court recognized that there are no grounds for declaring the agreements invalid or unlawful.
The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous instances, fully rejecting the plaintiff’s claims.
Case No. 910/3688/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – Termination of a service procurement contract between LLC “Bramante” and LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”.
The court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that previous court decisions require review. The panel of judges identified procedural or material violations in the reasoning of lower courts that do not allow making a substantiated decision. The Supreme Court considers it necessary to send the case for a new review to more thoroughly examine the circumstances and provide a comprehensive legal assessment of all evidence.
The Supreme Court revoked previous court decisions and sent the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 904/1037/24 dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a supply contract and penalty between LLC “Tekhnokhimreahent” and PJSC “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih”.
Main Court Arguments:
1) The court established that LLC “Tekhnokhimreahent” supplied goods for a total amount of 18,538,693.34 UAH, of which PJSC “ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih” paid only 12,415,014.50 UAH.
2) The supply order No. 4500412191 dated 14.09.2023 was sent on 15.09.2023 to electrHere is the translation of the provided text:
1. The court recognized the claims for debt recovery and penalty as substantiated, as the evidence of contract violation was proper and admissible.
Court decision: To leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Tekhnokhimreahent” unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 504/3085/20 dated 24/02/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Recognition of invalidity of a land plot sale and purchase agreement, concluded by the plaintiff’s representative in her favor.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The mere fact of family ties between the representative and the buyer is not grounds for declaring the contract invalid
– The representative acted within the scope of the power of attorney granted to her
– There is no evidence of malicious agreement between the representative and the buyer
– Non-receipt of funds is not a basis for declaring the contract invalid
3. Court decision: Reject the claim to declare the land plot sale and purchase agreement invalid.
Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous judicial practice, indicating that family ties in themselves do not indicate a malicious agreement.
Case No. 2-10181/08 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Termination of the sale and purchase agreement for unfinished construction and land plot.
Main arguments of the court:
1. JSC “Sense Bank” is the mortgagee of the disputed property, but was not involved in the case, which is a violation of procedural norms.
2. The court decision directly affects the rights and obligations of the bank, as it impacts the possibility of foreclosure on the mortgaged property.
3. Despite the long time since the original decision (2008), the bank reasonably proved the valid reasons for missing the appeal deadline, as it learned about the decision only in 2023.
Court decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, the appellate court ruling – unchanged.
Case No. 295/17472/23 dated 19/02/2025
Subject of dispute: A person challenges the actions of the Department of Urban Planning and Land Relations of the Zhytomyr City Council when considering her application dated February 10, 2022.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court confirmed that this dispute is a public law matter and should be considered in administrative proceedings, as it concerns challenging the actions of a local self-government body when exercising executive management functions. The court noted that the plaintiff is challenging the procedure for considering her application, not entering into private law relations, therefore the case is subject to consideration in an administrative court.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left unchanged the decisions of previous instances refusing to open proceedings in civil procedure and explained that the case should be considered in an administrative court.
Case No. 203/2320/21 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Establishing the procedure for using a store premises, co-owned by PERSON_1 (48/200 shares) and PERSON_2 (152/200 shares).
Main arguments of the court: Firstly, the court proceeded from the fact that the owner has the right to demand the removal of obstacles in the use of
