Case No. 991/6770/23 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Clarification of a court decision regarding the recovery in state revenue of an apartment recognized as an unjustified asset.
Main Arguments of the Court: First, the court decision dated 24.07.2024 is clear, motivated, and does not require additional clarification. Second, the representative of the defendant’s statement is essentially aimed not at clarification, but at challenging the essence of the court decision and changing its motivation. Third, arguments regarding the apartment’s improvement were already subject to consideration in previous court hearings and cannot be grounds for clarifying the decision.
Court Decision: The Appellate Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court left the appeal without satisfaction, supporting the first instance court’s decision to refuse clarification of the court decision.
Case No. 235/1547/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Establishing the fact of cohabitation of a woman with a deceased serviceman without marriage registration to receive monetary payments.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court considers that the previous instance courts incorrectly left the application without consideration. The court emphasized that improper identification of interested parties cannot be grounds for refusing to consider the case. Moreover, the court had the right to independently involve the deceased serviceman’s son as an interested party.
Court Decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for new consideration to the first instance court for proper determination of case participants and its merits.
The key thesis of the decision is that procedural formalities cannot impede the protection of an individual’s rights, especially in cases related to social protection.
Case No. 638/10787/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Claiming land plots formed as a result of division of previously illegally alienated land plots in favor of the Kharkiv City Territorial Community.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– Established the fact of illegal removal of land plots from communal ownership
– The court recognized the legitimacy of claiming newly created land plots, as they were formed from previously illegally alienated plots
– The appellate court correctly determined that the plaintiff did not miss the statute of limitations, as they learned about the rights violation only in February 2023
Court Decision: Uphold the appellate court’s resolution on claiming land plots in favor of the Kharkiv City Council.
The court decision demonstrates a consistent approach to protecting communal property through the vindication mechanism.
Case No. 466/12740/21 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Return of forestry land plots that were illegally transferred from state to private ownership.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The state is not the actual possessor of the land plot but has the right of possession
– A negatory claim (removing obstacles) in this case is an ineffective method of protection
– The appropriate method of protection is a vindication claim – claiming the land plot from illegal possession
– The court referred to previous decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirm this position
Court Decision: Uphold previous court decisions refusing the prosecutor’s claim, as the chosen method of protecting state rights is inappropriate.
Important: The court strictly adheres to established judicial practice regarding property rights protection.State-Owned Lands of the Forest Fund.
Case No. 990/62/24 dated 20/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine on Declaring a Judge of the Mezhiv District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast as Not Corresponding to the Occupied Position.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court established that the plaintiff has the right to challenge the HQCJ decision regarding the procedure of his qualification evaluation, in particular on the grounds of improper composition of the commission.
2. The Constitution and procedural legislation guarantee a person’s right to judicial protection and appeal against decisions of authorities that violate their rights.
3. Administrative courts must verify decisions of authorities for compliance with legislation, adherence to decision-making principles, and protect citizens’ rights.
Court Decision: Revoke the ruling of the Cassation Administrative Court on terminating proceedings and send the case for continued consideration to the court of first instance.
Case No. 754/3297/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Bank Client Challenges Improper Provision of Information about Credit Debt and Refusal to Conduct Mediation Procedures.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. JSC “UkrSibbank” provided comprehensive responses to all client inquiries, including explaining the procedure for obtaining a debt certificate and information about the guarantor.
2. The fact that the client does not agree with the content of the bank’s responses does not mean that these responses were not provided.
3. The dispute regarding the actions of the National Bank is a public law matter and is not subject to consideration under civil proceedings.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 278/1999/17 dated 12/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the state act for land ownership of a 0.24 hectare plot and its recovery in favor of the state.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The disputed land plot belongs to defense lands that can only be in state ownership
– The village council’s decision to grant the land plot to PERSON_1 was not actually made
– The land plot was illegally transferred to private ownership as the legally established procedure was not followed
– Recovery of the land plot is a legitimate method of protecting state interests
3. Court Decision: Satisfy the prosecutor’s claim – declare the state ownership act invalid and recover the land plot in favor of the state.
Case No. 560/14914/23 dated 14/03/2025
The case concerns the assignment of a disability pension to a person who does not have the full required insurance record.
Main Arguments of the Court: firstly, even considering the additional work period, the plaintiff’s insurance record does not reach 13 years, which is a mandatory condition for disability pension assignment; secondly, additional insurance record is credited only after the person reaches 60 years, and does not affect the right to receive a pension; thirdly, provisions of the old pension provision law cannot be applied in this case.
The court decided to leave previous court decisions unchanged and deny the plaintiff’s satisfaction of the cassation complaint.
Case No. 420/4572/20 dated 13/03/2025
The case concerns a labor dispute about recognizing decisions as unlawful and reinstatement of a prosecutor’s office employee.
The court thoroughly analyzed the applicant’s arguments and concluded that there are no grounds for reviewing the previous decision.Exceptional circumstances. The panel of judges considers that the previous court ruling was adopted on legal grounds, in compliance with all procedural norms and substantive law. The applicant’s arguments do not contain new circumstances that could fundamentally change the legal assessment of the case.
The Supreme Court denied satisfaction of PERSON_1’s application and left the previous ruling unchanged.
Case No. 520/3212/24 dated 13/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the legitimacy of applying penalties for late registration of tax invoices during quarantine and martial law.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– From May 27, 2022, the “COVID” moratorium on penalties during martial law was legally terminated
– The taxpayer had the opportunity to comply with the established tax invoice registration deadlines
– The plaintiff did not provide evidence of impossibility of fulfilling the tax obligation
– Provisions on suspension of the moratorium are clearly stated and do not allow alternative interpretation
3. Court decision: Uphold the decisions of previous instances and deny satisfaction of the company’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 620/17970/23 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the improper calculation of additional remuneration for a State Border Guard Service serviceman for participation in combat operations during martial law.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Previous instance courts formally approached the establishment of factual circumstances, limiting themselves to applying provisions of only one order for the entire disputed period.
2. Court conclusions that the plaintiff’s tasks are ordinary service activities do not take into account the specifics of performing service duties during martial law.
3. Courts did not investigate all available evidence and did not clarify whether the tasks performed by the plaintiff fall under the definition of “direct participation in combat operations”.
Court decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of previous instances, and referred the case for a new hearing to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 440/6273/24 dated 13/03/2025
Here is an analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging tax notifications-decisions on VAT accrual for the sale of firearms and ammunition parts.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– Legislation provides VAT exemption for defense-purpose goods during martial law
– The condition of procurement by state customers applies only to “other goods”, not the entire list of defense-purpose goods
– Sale of weapons to a local council and an individual entrepreneur does not deprive the operation of VAT exemption rights
3. Court decision: Cancel the appellate court ruling and uphold the first instance court decision exempting LLC “Steelplast” from VAT payment.
Note: The court actually deviated from previous practice of interpreting norms on VAT exemption for defense-purpose goods.
Case No. 363/2731/21 dated 05/03/2025
Here is a brief analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: The prosecutor challenged the State Geocadaster order on granting land plots to private ownership, claiming these plots are located within the coastal protection zone of a water body.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The prosecutor did not provide appropriate and sufficient evidence confirming the overlapping of land plots with water fund lands
– Evidence provided by the prosecutor (including a 1982 topographic map) is outdatedHere is the translation of the provided Ukrainian legal text into English:
– None of the provided letters from various institutions contains unequivocal confirmation of the land status
3. Court Decision: Deny the prosecutor’s claim, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Key Thesis: The court requires unequivocal contemporary evidence to satisfy the claim for land return.
Case No. 570/5254/23 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Determining the place of residence of a minor child after parents’ divorce.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court emphasized that the child’s interests are the most important criterion. In this case, the court considered that the child has a close emotional connection with the mother, permanently resides with her, attends kindergarten, and has a stable social environment. The father is not restricted in communicating with the child, and material living conditions are not a decisive factor in determining the place of residence.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left previous court decisions unchanged and denied the father’s cassation appeal, confirming that the child’s place of residence will be with the mother.
Case No. 917/538/24(917/861/24) dated 17/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
Subject of Dispute: Challenging the ruling on partial recognition of creditor claims in a bankruptcy case.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The right to appeal court decisions in bankruptcy cases has its specific features and limitations.
2. A ruling on recognizing a creditor’s claims cannot be appealed separately from the ruling following the preliminary hearing.
3. The appellate court incorrectly refused to accept the appellate complaint due to an allegedly missed deadline, when in fact, the deadline had not expired.
Court Decision: Leave the cassation complaint unsatisfied, modify the appellate court’s ruling by returning the appellate complaint to the applicant.
Interestingly, the court detailed the specifics of appealing court decisions in bankruptcy cases, effectively creating an important methodological approach to such disputes.
Case No. 146/775/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under credit agreements from an individual in favor of a financial company.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the appellate court unjustifiably returned the appellate complaint to the respondent’s representative, as the electronic power of attorney formed in the “Electronic Court” subsystem is a full-fledged document confirming the representative’s powers. The court emphasized the inadmissibility of excessive formalism when resolving procedural issues and the need to ensure real access to justice.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation complaints, canceled the appellate court’s ruling, and referred the case back for resolving the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
Case No. 918/835/23 dated 04/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of damages amounting to 1,901,104.15 UAH for increased bank commission due to late placement of bank guarantee coverage.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The enterprise did not prove the fact of incurring the claimed damages
– The company paid all issued invoices
– Expert opinion confirmed that all financial obligations were fulfilled
– There is no unequivocal causal relationship between the Company’s actions and the allegedly incurred damages
3. Court Decision: Completely deny the Enterprise’s claim for damages recovery.
The court decision demonstrates a principled position regarding the necessity of unequivocally proving the fact of incurring damages and their amount.
Case No. 280/2749/24 dated 17/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Family members of a deceased serviceman challenge the Ministry of Defense’s decision to refuse a one-time monetary assistance of 15 million hryvnias.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1) Resolution No. 168 provides for payment of 15 million hryvnias only in case of death or death due to injury, but in this case, the serviceman died from a disease.
2) The serviceman did not receive any injuries and died of natural causes from cardiomyopathy.
3) There is no evidence of the plaintiffs’ appeal to the defendant with a request for assistance payment under Resolution No. 168.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to refuse the claim, thereby confirming the legitimacy of assistance payment in a smaller amount of 1.86 million hryvnias.
Case No. 904/62/19 dated 11/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Recovery from Joint Stock Company “Dniprovazmash” in favor of State Enterprise “Pivdenne Design Bureau” of an unused advance of 46,436,000.00 UAH under a contract for creating research and development work.
Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the ambiguity of evaluating evidence of advance use by previous court instances
– It was established that acceptance certificates for stages 2 and 3 of the contract were not drawn up by the parties
– The court pointed to the need for a detailed examination of all provided evidence while observing the principle of “evidence reliability”
– Contradictions were identified in expert opinions and documents provided by the parties
Court Decision: Cancel the appellate court’s resolution and send the case for a new review to fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances.
Case No. 334/4215/22 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of the Dispute: Termination of a lifelong maintenance agreement between PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. PERSON_1 missed the appeal period for the first instance court decision by more than a year.
2. The plaintiff was notified of the court decision, was present at the court session, and received a copy of the decision through her representative.
3. References to hostilities and martial law are not sufficient grounds for restoring the procedural period.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the appellate court’s decision to refuse to open appellate proceedings.
It is important to note that the court strictly adhered to procedural norms and the principle of legal certainty, not allowing unjustified appeal of the court decision outside the legally established timeframes.
Case No. 200/4768/23 dated 26/02/2025Analysis of Court Decisions:
1. Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Legality of a Fine Imposed on JSC “Donetskoblgaz” for Late Registration of Tax Invoices during Martial Law.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The moratorium on penalties provided during quarantine ceased to be in effect from May 27, 2022, with the introduction of martial law.
– Reduced penalties introduced by Law No. 2876-IX do not have retroactive effect and apply only to invoices registered after February 8, 2023.
– The taxpayer had a real opportunity to register invoices on time, therefore references to force majeure are unfounded.
3. Court Decision: Reject the cassation appeal and maintain the fine.
Key Thesis: Martial law does not automatically exempt taxpayers from liability for violating tax invoice registration deadlines.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 24/02/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Monetary Claims by PJSC “Dakor West” for 495,000 UAH in the Bankruptcy Case of PJSC “Raiz Company”.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court applied a higher standard of proof due to signs of party interconnectedness (PJSC “Dakor West” and the debtor are controlled by the same person).
2. The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of the reality of economic transactions – only copies of payment orders without confirmation of fund movement.
3. Absence of a bank statement confirming fund transfer casts doubt on the reliability of the provided documents.
Court Decision: Deny PJSC “Dakor West” recognition of creditor claims for 495,000 UAH, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 359/10101/20 dated 10/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of a Military Serviceman’s Former Wife and Her Children as Having Lost the Right to Use Service Housing after Divorce.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The defendant is a single mother with minor children who have permanently resided in the service apartment since its receipt in 2015.
2. Legislation prohibits eviction of single mothers with minor children without providing alternative housing.
3. The court assessed the proportionality of eviction and concluded that such interference with the right to housing would be disproportionate and would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Court Decision: Reject the claim to recognize the military serviceman’s former wife and her children as having lost the right to use service housing.
Case No. 125/1018/22 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Recognizing Inaction as Unlawful and Compelling the Apiary Owner to Fence It with a 2.5m High Fence.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The defendant violates apiary maintenance rules by not fencing it with a 2.5m high fence, as required by veterinary and sanitary regulations.
2. As a result, the plaintiff cannot normally use her own land plot due to constant mass bee flight, repeated stings, and allergic reactions.
3. The court established that the defendant’s actions violate the neighbor’s rights to safe living conditions and land use.
Court Decision: Compel the defendant to fence the apiary with a 2.5m high fence and recover 25,000 UAH in moral damages for the plaintiff.
Case No. 910/628/20 dated 24/02/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Monetary Claims by Agricultural Society “Sonychne” to the Debtor PJSC “Raiz Company” for 423,3291. Bankruptcy Case:
2. Main Court Arguments:
– The creditor did not provide indisputable evidence of actual business transactions
– Payment orders submitted by the creditor did not contain all mandatory requisites
– It was established that the economic entity LLC “Sonychne” and the bank through which operations were conducted are connected with the ultimate beneficial owner PERSON_1
– An enhanced standard of proof was applied to the creditor due to signs of interconnectedness
3. Court Decision: Reject the recognition of creditor claims of the economic entity LLC “Sonychne” for the amount of 423,329.76 UAH, leaving previous court decisions unchanged.
Case No. 910/11409/24 dated 05/03/2025
Subject of Dispute: Yuvesta Development Company attempted to obtain a lawsuit security measure to prohibit the alienation of a non-residential premises that was sold at electronic auction.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The proposed security measures are essentially aimed at stopping property sale, which contradicts procedural legislation.
2. Legal norms allow stopping property sale only when filing a claim for ownership recognition, which was not done in this case.
3. Legislation prohibits taking security measures that impede auction proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal of Yuvesta Development LLC and supported the appellate court’s decision to refuse lawsuit security.
Case No. 522/21486/18 dated 27/11/2024
Subject of Dispute: The plaintiff seeks to declare invalid donation, purchase and sale, and mortgage agreements for apartments, which he believes were concluded by the debtor to avoid debt payment under a court decision.
Main Court Arguments:
1. The court established that property arrest is possible only if the property owner is a defendant in the case.
2. At the time of case consideration, the apartments belonged to the final acquirer who is not a party to the proceedings, therefore arresting the property would be unjustified.
3. The court emphasized that lawsuit security must be proportionate and not violate the rights of persons not involved in the case.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s ruling unchanged.
Case No. 24/07-2024 dated 13/03/2025
Subject of Dispute – issuing an executive sheet for compulsory enforcement of an arbitration court decision on debt recovery under a loan agreement.
The court carefully analyzed the parties’ arguments and concluded that there are no grounds to cancel the appellate court’s decision. Key arguments were compliance with arbitration proceedings, absence of violations that could prevent executive sheet issuance, and the legitimacy of the original arbitration court decision on debt recovery.
The Supreme Court rejected the appellate appeal and supported the Cherkasy Appellate Court’s decision to issue an executive sheet.
Case No. 201/7848/21 dated 05/03/2025
Brief Case Analysis:
1. Subject of Dispute: Compensation for damage caused to a person due to illegal compilation of an administrative offense report by a patrol police inspector.
2. Main Court Arguments:
– It was established that the report was compiled with violations due to improper traffic accident documentation by the investigator
– The plaintiff suffered moral damage due to illegal administrative liability
– The court recognized the right to partial compensation for material and moral damage
3. Court Decision: [Incomplete text]From the state in favor of the plaintiff:
– UAH 20,100 for moral damages
– UAH 675.37 for material expenses
– UAH 7,553 for court expenses
Important: The court deviated from previous practice regarding compensation for damages by police authorities.
Case No. 487/3019/24 dated 26/02/2025
Subject of dispute: Deprivation of parental rights of PERSON_3, PERSON_4, and PERSON_5 regarding their minor children PERSON_1 and PERSON_2.
Main arguments of the court:
1. Parents systematically evaded parental responsibilities, children lived in unsatisfactory conditions, the mother used narcotic substances.
2. The Children’s Services repeatedly conducted preventive work, but the parents did not change their behavior.
3. The court noted that mere objections by parents against deprivation of parental rights are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the claim.
Court decision: Cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new review to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of the case circumstances.
Case No. 638/20120/16-ц dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement and invalidation of a credit agreement between LLC “Porsche Mobility” and an individual.
Main arguments of the court:
1. The credit agreement was signed by the parties voluntarily, with all necessary conditions, and the borrower had long been fulfilling its terms, including monthly payments.
2. The lender’s failure to meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Law “On Consumer Rights Protection” is not grounds for declaring the agreement invalid, as the borrower was aware of the contract terms and did not object to them during signing.
3. Payment calculations were made according to the contract terms – at the weighted average exchange rate of hryvnia to US dollar on the invoice date, as evidenced by bank-provided references.
Court decision: Reject PERSON_1’s claim to declare the credit agreement invalid and partially satisfy LLC “Porsche Mobility’s” claim to recover debt in the amount of UAH 480,577.06.
Case No. 915/16/24 dated 12/03/2025
Subject of dispute: Challenging the ruling of the court of first instance on leaving without consideration a motion to recuse a judge in a bankruptcy case.
Main arguments of the court: First, the ruling on leaving a recusal motion without consideration is not included in the list of rulings that can be separately appealed from the court’s decision according to Article 255 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Second, in bankruptcy cases, general procedural rules of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine apply to appealing interim rulings. Third, restricting the right to appeal certain rulings is established to effectively administer justice and does not violate the parties’ rights.
Court decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation complaint unsatisfied, confirming the correctness of the appellate court’s ruling to return the appellate complaint.
Case No. 990/95/24 dated 13/03/2025
Here is the analysis of the court decision:
1. Subject of dispute: Challenging the inaction of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding consideration of an appeal about evaluating the behavior of its former member.
2. Main arguments of the court:
– The HQCJ has the right to determine the priority of issues for consideration at a meeting
– Commission members did not support including the issue of considering the appeal in the agenda
– The refusal to consider the issue itself is not unlawful inaction
– At the time of case consideration, the HQCJ member was already dismissed, so the need to evaluate their actions lost relevance
3. Court decision: Partial satisfaction of the appeal
