Case No. 712/12819/20 dated 28/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the real estate share sale and purchase agreement as invalid.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff was the owner of 11/100 shares of the real estate at the time of the agreement and provided personal written consent for the sale of 37/100 shares
– Her share was not reduced as a result of the agreement
– There is no evidence of violation of her rights or legitimate interests
– Previous court decisions on ownership recognition were canceled, but this does not affect the validity of the disputed sale and purchase agreement
Court Decision: Reject the claim to declare the sale and purchase agreement invalid.
The court decision clearly demonstrates the principle of good faith and protection of the property acquirer’s rights.
Case No. 990/292/24 dated 27/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the resolution of the High Council of Justice to suspend consideration of a judge’s resignation application due to the existence of a disciplinary complaint.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The High Council of Justice had legal grounds to suspend the consideration of the resignation application, as there is a disciplinary case against the judge that may lead to dismissal on other grounds.
2. The court cannot assess the legitimacy of initiating the disciplinary case, as this is a matter of internal disciplinary proceedings.
3. Suspending the consideration of the resignation application is a proportionate way to protect the public interest regarding the authority of justice.
Court Decision: Completely reject the judge’s claim.
Case No. 697/1980/20 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Compensation for material and moral damages caused by a road traffic accident.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. PERSON_2’s guilt in causing a road traffic accident, as a result of which PERSON_1’s car suffered significant damage, has been established.
2. Forensic examination confirmed that the market value of the car before the accident was 599,040 UAH, and after the accident – 155,588 UAH, meaning the actual damage is 443,452 UAH.
3. Insurance compensation of 99,000 UAH does not cover the full cost of damage, so the remaining amount should be recovered directly from the perpetrator.
Court Decision: Recover from PERSON_2 in favor of PERSON_1 material damages of 344,452 UAH, moral damages of 10,000 UAH, and court expenses.
Case No. 521/17528/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Consideration of the submission by the Odesa Court of Appeal to transfer the case materials regarding a complaint by representatives of the NGO “Right to Live” about the prosecutor’s inaction in not entering information about a criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found it necessary to transfer the case materials from the Odesa Court of Appeal to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal to ensure proper consideration of the case on its merits. The court was guided by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular Articles 34 and 376, which regulate the procedure for transferring materials between courts. The decision was made to ensure a comprehensive and thorough review of the NGO representatives’ complaint.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court granted the submission of the Odesa Court of Appeal and transferred the case materials to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal for consideration on the merits.
Case No. 520/28124/23 dated 06/03/2025Analysis of Court Decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the State Audit Service’s conclusion regarding a violation of the procurement tender procedure.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– Regarding Labor Safety Certificate: The court recognized that the chief engineer’s documents fully comply with the tender documentation requirements.
– Regarding Bank Guarantee:
The court established that:
– The bank guarantee meets all necessary requirements
– A separate guarantee agreement is not mandatory
– Reference to the basic banking service agreement is legitimate
3. Court Decision: The claim of the Capital Construction Department was fully satisfied. The State Audit Service’s conclusion was deemed unfounded.
4. Key Conclusion: The State Audit Service groundlessly demanded termination of the contract with the tender winner.
Decision in favor of the procurement customer.
Case No. 753/15394/19 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation proceedings in a criminal case regarding the accusation of PERSON_9 and PERSON_8 for committing criminal offenses related to illegal vehicle seizure and other crimes.
Main Court Arguments: The court considered cassation appeals by the convicted person and their defenders against the Kyiv Appellate Court’s ruling. During the case review, it was established that the proceedings participants withdrew their previously submitted cassation appeals. According to procedural legislation, such withdrawal is grounds for closing cassation proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court issued a ruling to close cassation proceedings due to withdrawal of cassation appeals.
Case No. 298/304/18 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling in a criminal case of murder (Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court partially agreed with the prosecutor’s arguments, recognizing that previous court decisions require review. The court identified procedural violations in case consideration at previous instances that could have affected the objectivity and completeness of the judicial review. The panel of judges concluded that a new review is necessary in the appellate court to further examine case circumstances.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the Lviv Appellate Court’s ruling, and appointed a new review in the appellate court.
Case No. 727/789/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Defender’s cassation appeal against the first instance court verdict and appellate court ruling regarding a person accused of large-scale theft.
Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court thoroughly analyzed case materials and concluded that previous court decisions are lawful and substantiated. The court considered evidence provided by the prosecution and recognized that it fully confirms the person’s guilt in committing the criminal offense. Additionally, the court considered the defendant’s previous conviction, which might have influenced the verdict.
Court Decision: Maintain the Shevchenkivskyi District Court’s verdict and Chernivtsi Appellate Court’s ruling unchanged, and reject the defender’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 1/3381/12 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Convicted person’s motion to transfer the criminal case from the Vinnytsia Appellate Court to another appellate court.
The court was guided by the following arguments: firstly, the convicted person claims a new circumstance – lack of information aboutFirstly, there are no confidential investigative actions in the case materials; secondly, the proceedings for review of the verdict have already been completed; thirdly, at the time of consideration of the petition in the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, there are no appeals or applications from the convicted person.
The court decided to leave the petition unsatisfied, that is, to refuse the convicted person in transferring the case to another court.
Case No. 991/1354/25 dated 06/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of the dispute:
The case concerns aiding in receiving an illegal benefit by a judge for lifting the seizure of property.
2. Main arguments of the court:
The court established that the accused PERSON_4 acted in prior conspiracy with the judge PERSON_1, acting as an intermediary in transferring an illegal benefit of 2,500 US dollars for lifting the seizure of vehicles and timber. The accused admitted his guilt, entered into an agreement with the prosecutor and committed to exposing the accomplice of the crime. The court took into account active assistance in solving the crime, sincere remorse, and voluntary desire to compensate the state.
3. Court decision:
The court approved the plea agreement, sentenced PERSON_4 to 5 years of imprisonment with a probation period of 2 years, and ordered to pay 150,000 hryvnias to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Case No. 344/624/25 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: The accused’s petition to transfer the criminal case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the accused’s petition and concluded that there are no sufficient grounds to satisfy his requirements for changing the jurisdiction of the case. The court was guided by the procedural norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular Articles 34 and 376. The decision is based on an assessment of the case circumstances and compliance with the principles of judicial proceedings.
Court decision: The accused’s petition is left unsatisfied, meaning the criminal proceedings remain in the court where they were previously located.
Case No. 202/4416/19 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal by LLC “Dreamy Garden” against the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal refusing to open appellate proceedings.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the case materials and concluded that the appellate court improperly refused to open appellate proceedings. The court believes that the appellate court’s decision requires review, as it may contain procedural violations. The panel of judges found grounds for canceling the challenged ruling and appointing a new appellate review.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the ruling of the Dnipro Court of Appeal, and appointed a new review in the appellate instance court.
Case No. 727/1506/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of the dispute: Cassation appeal of the verdict against a person convicted of storing narcotic substances without the purpose of sale.
Main arguments of the court: The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, recognizing that the previous judicial instances incorrectly qualified the defendant’s actions as a repeated crime. The panel of judges excluded the episode from October 24, 2022, and canceled the qualifying feature of repetition. At the same time, the court maintained the main qualification under Part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine on illegal storage of narcotic substances.
Court decision: To modify the previous court decisions, sentencing PERSON_7 to 1 year of imprisonment with confiscation of property, except for housing.Case No. 202/13244/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal by defense counsel against the judgment of the Dnipro Court of Appeal in a criminal case concerning a crime under Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (illegal handling of narcotic substances).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court considers that the case requires additional collegiate review by the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court. This may be related to the presence of complex legal issues or potential procedural violations in previous judicial instances that require in-depth analysis and a collective expert opinion.
Court Decision: To transfer the criminal proceedings for review to the Joint Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court.
Case No. 752/6963/23 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Cassation appeal by the prosecutor against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal in a criminal case of robbery (Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court identified procedural violations in the previous judicial decision that could significantly affect the correctness of the judicial review. The panel of judges concluded that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of criminal procedural legislation. The decision requires additional verification and comprehensive review on appeal.
Court Decision: The prosecutor’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal was revoked, and a new review was assigned to the appellate court.
Case No. 607/26888/18 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Review of a cassation appeal against the ruling of the Ternopil Court of Appeal on returning the appellate appeal.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the case materials and concluded that the appellate court correctly returned the appellate appeal. The court established that there are no procedural grounds for appealing the appellate court’s decision. The panel of judges concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal are unfounded and there are no grounds for its satisfaction.
Court Decision: To leave the ruling of the Ternopil Court of Appeal unchanged and the cassation appeal of PERSON_6 – unsatisfied.
Case No. 214/3305/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Criminal case concerning a traffic accident resulting in the death of a woman’s husband.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court found that previous judicial decisions have shortcomings in terms of considering the civil claim for damages. The court considers it necessary to send the civil claim for a new review in civil proceedings, as the previous review did not fully ensure the rights of the injured party. At the same time, the criminal part of the verdict against the accused PERSON_7 was left unchanged.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, revoked previous judicial decisions regarding the civil claim, and sent the case for a new review.
Case No. 908/3468/13 (908/2076/24) dated 04/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claiming immovable property from LLC “Veles-Torg, LTD” in favor of PJSC “Zaporizhzhya Steel Rolling Plant” and cancellation of decisions on state registration of ownership rights to these objects.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that as a result of previous judicial decisions, the auction for the sale of corporate rights of PJSC “Zaporizhzhya Steel Rolling Plant” in LLC “Vodn…Here is the translation:
and the “Dnipro” station. Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that contrary to the court’s prohibition of alienation, LLC “SRF “Orbita” re-registered the property rights to real estate to LLC “Veles-Torg”. Thirdly, the court considers that the interim measures are proportionate, do not deprive the defendant of the right of possession and use of the property, but only temporarily restrict the right of disposal.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of LLC “Veles-Torg, LTD” unsatisfied, and the court decisions of previous instances – unchanged.
Case No. 295/6959/22 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the state executor’s resolution and act as illegal.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The Defendant PERSON_2 filed a motion for compensation of court expenses with an omission of the established five-day period, without explaining the reasons for such omission.
2. The court was guided by the principle that the right to perform a procedural action is lost after the expiration of the established period, and documents submitted later remain without consideration.
3. When determining court expenses, the court considered the criteria of their validity, necessity, and reasonableness of size, guided by the practice of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the previous court decisions – unchanged.
Case No. 185/3050/21 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing inheritance rights of a person who lived with the deceased as one family, outside the order of succession.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court supported the position of the appellate court that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of long-term care and the testator’s helpless state. The expertise confirmed the helpless state only three months before death, which is not sufficient to change the order of inheritance. To satisfy such a claim, five legal facts are necessary: care, material support, assistance, duration of actions, and the testator’s helpless state.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation appeal of PERSON_1 unsatisfied, the appellate court’s resolution – unchanged.
Case No. 556/3325/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim of a minor son to deprive the father of parental rights due to prolonged evasion of parental responsibilities.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. Father PERSON_2 has not maintained a relationship with his son for more than five years, has not been interested in his life, health, or education.
2. After the wife’s (child’s mother) death, the father did not show care for the son, but only called with demands to return money.
3. The guardianship and trusteeship authority confirmed that the father does not participate in the son’s upbringing and is not interested in his life and condition.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and upheld the district court’s decision to deprive PERSON_2 of parental rights.
Case No. 201/2913/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: PrivatBank attempts to declare transactions regarding real estate invalid and recover debt under a credit agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
: The court indicated that when determining the jurisdiction of the case, it is insufficient to use only the formal criterion of participants’ composition. The nature of legal relations is decisive. In this case, the main party is an individual – the borrower under the credit agreement, therefore the case should be considered in the order of civil proceedings. The appellate court erroneously closed the proceedings, considering the case commercial, since it was contributed to the authorized capitalTranslation:
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new review to the appellate instance.
Case No. 752/5284/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claim for insurance compensation, which was left without consideration due to the plaintiff’s non-appearance in court hearings.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the plaintiff was properly notified twice about court hearings but did not appear and did not submit a request to consider the case in his absence. Second, the reference to an air raid as a reason for non-appearance was not considered convincing by the court, as the all-clear signal occurred 30 minutes before the hearing. Third, the court emphasized that each participant in the judicial process must be active and care about timely participation in the case review.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the previous instances’ decision to leave the claim without consideration.
Case No. 215/1704/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring actions unlawful, canceling an order, and recovering bonuses for a group of employees of the Kryvyi Rih Iron Ore Combine.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court established that the district court incorrectly closed the proceedings only based on one plaintiff’s statement, effectively limiting other plaintiffs’ right of access to justice. Second, the court confirmed the legitimacy of filing a claim through electronic court by a lawyer on behalf of a group of persons. Third, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring the right to judicial protection in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine and the Civil Procedural Code.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal of JSC “Kryvyi Rih Iron Ore Combine” unsatisfied, supporting the appellate court’s ruling to return the case for additional consideration.
Case No. 990/36/23 dated 06/03/2025
The case concerns challenging a decree issued by the President of Ukraine for PERSON_1.
The court carefully analyzed the appellate complaint and concluded that there are no legal grounds to satisfy the plaintiff’s demands. The court thoroughly examined all case circumstances, analyzed evidence, and established that the challenged decree complies with current legislation. The legal position of previous instances was recognized by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as substantiated and lawful.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the appellate complaint unsatisfied, confirming the previous decision of the Cassation Administrative Court and recovering court fees from the plaintiff.
Case No. 440/6434/22 dated 07/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Declaring the inaction of the North-Eastern Interregional Directorate of the Ministry of Justice unlawful regarding non-provision of access to registries for a private notary and restoration in the Unified Notary Register.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court analyzed the legitimacy of legal assistance expenses, paying attention to proportionality criteria: case complexity, lawyer’s time spent, volume of services provided.
2. It was established that previous instance courts formally approached determining expense amounts without investigating all circumstances and evidence.
3. The court revealed significant procedural violations: lack of assessment of incurred expense evidence, unjustified calculations, and non-consideration of the respondent’s objections.
Court Decision: Cancel previous instances’ decisions regarding recovery of legal assistance expenses and send the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
Case No. 753/716/21 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Allocation of a share in non-residential premises and recognition of ownership rights to a part of a non-residential premise.
Main arguments of the court: The court thoroughly analyzed procedural norms regarding the distribution of court expenses, particularly expenses for legal assistance by an attorney. It established that legal assistance expenses must be proportionate to the case complexity, time spent by the attorney, volume of services provided, and the case’s significance. Since the plaintiff’s cassation complaint was left unsatisfied, and the plaintiff did not submit objections to the application for distribution of court expenses, the court concluded that the recovery of legal assistance expenses was justified.
Court decision: The court satisfied the application of PERSON_3 and recovered 30,000 hryvnias of court expenses for professional legal assistance from PERSON_1.
Case No. 916/1795/24 dated 05/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Kodym Consumer Society challenges the Kodym City Council’s decision to refuse transfer of a land plot for permanent use.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The plaintiff did not provide proper evidence of registering the right to permanent land use in accordance with land legislation requirements.
2. Kodym Consumer Society cannot be a subject of permanent land use rights under current legislation.
3. The plaintiff’s petition is non-specific and does not meet legislative requirements.
4. The city council’s decision to refuse land plot transfer is legal and justified.
Court decision: Leave the Kodym Consumer Society’s cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 914/1200/21 dated 25/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Imposing joint liability on the director of LLC “Raiz-sugar” for late submission of bankruptcy application.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Joint liability of the director is a legal mechanism for protecting creditors’ rights in case of non-filing a bankruptcy application when there is a threat of insolvency.
2. An effective method of protection involves not only establishing the violation fact but also simultaneous recovery of the corresponding amount.
3. In this case, JSC “Ukreximbank” chose an inappropriate protection method, as it did not claim damages recovery, which makes full protection of creditors’ rights impossible.
Court decision: Reject JSC “Ukreximbank’s” application for imposing joint liability on the debtor’s director due to the ineffectiveness of the chosen protection method.
Case No. 695/1734/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Cassation complaints of perRegarding the Cherkasy Court of Appeal Rulings on Refusal to Restore the Deadline for Appellate Appeal and Return of Appellate Complaint.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case and concluded that the appellate court’s decisions require review. The court established that the previous appellate court rulings contain procedural violations that could negatively affect a person’s rights. The panel of judges considered it necessary to cancel the previous decisions and send the case for a new appellate review to ensure a complete and comprehensive examination of the circumstances.
Court Decision: Cassation complaints were partially satisfied, the Cherkasy Court of Appeal rulings were cancelled, and a new review in the appellate court was appointed.
Case No. 466/9152/23 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of penalty for improper execution of a preliminary real estate purchase agreement.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. A preliminary purchase agreement for an apartment was concluded between the parties, not a service or work performance contract.
2. Provisions of the Law “On Consumer Rights Protection” regarding penalty recovery do not apply to preliminary purchase agreements.
3. LLC “BIC “Rubicon Group” is not a service provider, and PERSON_1 is not a consumer within the meaning of the law.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, keep the appellate court ruling unchanged, and refuse penalty recovery.
Case No. 824/133/24 dated 06/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a wheat purchase agreement between the Ukrainian company “Agrocenter-Ukraine” and the foreign company “Trans Trade RK SA”.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The arbitration clause in the contract clearly provides for transferring all disputes to the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC), therefore the buyer’s objection about the arbitration’s lack of competence is unfounded.
2. The buyer did not challenge the ICAC’s competence during the arbitration proceedings and did not file objections regarding the arbitration composition.
3. The ICAC decision does not violate Ukraine’s public order, as it concerns a typical contractual dispute and does not affect the state’s fundamental interests.
Court Decision: Leave the buyer’s appellate complaint unsatisfied and keep the ICAC decision unchanged.
Case No. 405/3799/22 dated 05/03/2025
Case Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for moral damages caused by unlawful dismissal and subsequent unlawful actions by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and the MIA Department in Kirovohrad Region.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The plaintiff suffered moral damage due to unlawful dismissal in 2014, which was cancelled by court only in 2020
– The court established the psychologically traumatic impact on the plaintiff of prolonged court proceedings and service conflicts
– The plaintiff was forced to make significant efforts to protect their rights and restore their status
– Compensation amount (25,000 UAH from each defendant) was determined considering principles of reasonableness and fairness
3. Court Decision: Partial satisfaction of the claim – recovery of 25,000 UAH moral damages from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and the MIA Department in Kirovohrad Region.
Case No. 521/729/20 dated 06/03/2025
Case Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of living together to obtain inheritance rights.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– For inheritance under the fourth line, it is necessary to prove joint living with the deceased for at least 5 years before the inheritance opening.
– Mere
