Case No. 591/3172/22 of April 2, 2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of PERSON_7 for committing criminal offenses under Part 1 of Article 125 (minor bodily injury) and Part 2 of Article 156 (corruption of a minor) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances, noted that the guilt of PERSON_7 was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the totality of evidence, in particular, the testimony of the legal representative of the victim, a witness, expert opinions and a video recording of the interrogation of the minor victim, conducted in accordance with Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in accordance with Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, since the defense counsel was duly notified of the interrogation, but did not appear, and had the opportunity to agree on a position with the client. The court also emphasized that a repeated interrogation of the minor victim could lead to her re-victimization, which contradicts the principles of protecting the rights of the child. The court of cassation emphasized that it is a court of law, not of fact, and has no right to re-evaluate the evidence established by the courts of previous instances.
Court decision: The judgment of the Zarichny District Court of Sumy and the ruling of the Poltava Court of Appeal regarding PERSON_7 were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the defense counsel was dismissed.
Case No. 924/866/21 of April 10, 2025
Greetings! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt in the amount of UAH 315,671,562.71 between the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine and the Gas Distribution System Operator “Khmelnytskgaz”.
2. Unfortunately, the provided excerpt of the resolution does not contain the arguments that the court used when making the decision. The text contains only the introductory and operative parts. To provide a complete analysis, I need information about the court’s motives, as stated in the reasoning part of the decision. Usually, the court takes into account previous agreements between the parties, the circumstances that led to the debt, regulations governing their relationship, and evidence provided by the parties. Also, the court could have taken into account the conclusions of experts, if any were involved in the case.
3. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeal of the Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine, and to leave the decision of the court of appeal unchanged.
Case No. 9901/179/21 of April 9, 2025
Good day! Let’s consider the decision of the Supreme Court in the case regarding the appeal of the Decree of the President of Ukraine.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by Best Oil Company LLC of the Decree of the President of Ukraine in part.
2. Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain the court’s arguments. But usually, in such cases, the court examines the powers
The President of Ukraine issues relevant decrees, and the court verifies the legality and validity of the grounds for their issuance, including whether the rights and interests of the plaintiff have been violated. The court also assesses compliance with the procedure for adopting the Decree and takes into account the position of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine, if they are involved in the case as third parties. The court could examine the issue of compliance of the Decree with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, as well as Ukraine’s international obligations. An important aspect is checking whether the President exceeded his authority by issuing the Decree and whether he interfered in the sphere of competence of other state authorities.
3. The court decided to dismiss the claim of Best Oil Company LLC.
Case No. 368/1158/23 dated 04/03/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Kyiv Court of Appeal’s refusal to open appellate proceedings on the complaint of the defense counsel against the first instance court’s ruling on the extension of detention and determination of the amount of bail.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court, indicating that the appellate court had misinterpreted the criminal procedural law. The court emphasized that after the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated June 13, 2019, No. 4-r/2019, which declared unconstitutional the provision on the impossibility of appealing a ruling on the extension of the term of detention, such rulings are subject to appeal. The court also noted that since the ruling on the extension of detention and determination of bail was issued during the court proceedings in the court of first instance, and the determination of bail is an integral part of this decision, the appeal against an alternative preventive measure in the form of bail cannot be considered as an appeal against a separate court decision that is not subject to review on appeal. In addition, the court indicated that the appellate court had already reviewed similar decisions in this proceeding.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal and ordered a new hearing in the appellate court.
Case No. 216/3518/23 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as valid of an order issued by a former employee of a state enterprise, by which he actually appointed himself as the acting head of this enterprise.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff was not an employee of the enterprise at the time of issuing the order and, accordingly, did not have the authority to issue orders on its behalf. The court noted that the employment contract between the plaintiff and the enterprise was terminated by agreement of the parties, which is confirmed by the relevant order and the fact that the plaintiff received his employment record book. The court also emphasized that the appointment of the head of a state
of the enterprise is within the competence of the authorized body, not the court, and that the court cannot substitute itself for this body. In addition, the courts of previous instances examined the evidence provided by the parties, as well as the witness’s testimony in the court of first instance, correctly assessed them in their entirety, and reasonably concluded that at the time of the issuance of the order of May 10, 2023, PERSON_1 was not in labor relations with SE “Stepove,” and therefore did not have the appropriate authority to issue this order on behalf of SE “Stepove.”
3. The court of cassation left the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decisions of the previous instances – without changes.
**Case No. 522/23370/21 dated 03/26/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of PERSON_1 against PERSON_2 for the recovery of USD 1,759,997.35, which, according to the plaintiff, was transferred to the defendant without sufficient legal grounds.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court mistakenly closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the dispute is subject to consideration in the commercial court. The court of cassation emphasized that the criteria for distinguishing judicial jurisdiction are the subject composition of legal relations, the subject of the dispute, and the nature of the disputed substantive legal relations. In this case, the dispute arose between individuals, and the plaintiff asserts the absence of any contractual relations with the defendant. The appellate court did not take into account that the plaintiff, when applying to the court, indicated the absence of contractual relations between him and the defendant as individuals, and the memorandum does not establish ensuring the fulfillment of an obligation by an individual. The court of cassation noted that the plaintiff has the right to independently determine the defendant, and in this case, he chose an individual. Thus, a dispute between individuals regarding the recovery of funds received without sufficient legal grounds is subject to consideration in the order of civil procedure.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appellate instance.
**Case No. 464/377/24 dated 03/26/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the order to evict an internally displaced person (IDP) from temporary housing.
2. The court of appellate instance, with which the Supreme Court agreed, overturned the decision of the court of first instance and recognized as unlawful the order to evict the IDP, motivated by the fact that temporary housing falls under the definition of “housing” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the eviction was carried out without a court decision, which is a violation of Article 47 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The court emphasized that even if the right to reside is terminated, the eviction must be assessed by the court for proportionality, taking into account the principle of “fair balance” between the interests of the individual and society, as well as the fact that
a person should not bear an excessive burden. The court noted that eviction of IDPs for systematic violation of military registration rules is a disproportionate measure, as there is no direct link between the violation of military registration rules and deprivation of housing, and the individual circumstances of the plaintiff, including disability, were not taken into account. The court emphasized that the eviction was carried out without regard to the principle of proportionality and without recourse to the court, which is a violation of human rights.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision, confirming the illegality of evicting IDPs from temporary housing without a court decision and without adhering to the principle of proportionality.
Case No. 357/12260/21 dated 26/03/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the removal of obstacles to the use of property by evicting the defendants from an apartment purchased with borrowed funds, which was foreclosed upon.
2. The appellate court granted the claim for eviction because it found that the disputed apartment was purchased with borrowed funds, which was confirmed by the earmarked purpose of the loan in the loan agreement. The court took into account that the defendants did not provide evidence to refute this fact. The appellate court noted that the new owner has the right to use their property, and the defendants, who have lost the right to use it, are obstructing this. The court also took into account that the demand for eviction was sent to the debtor, who at that time was registered in the apartment. The appellate court concluded that since the apartment was purchased with borrowed funds, eviction of residents without providing other housing is permitted, in accordance with Article 109 of the Housing Code of Ukraine and Article 40 of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage.” The court of cassation agreed with these conclusions, rejecting the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding violations of procedural law and incorrect application of substantive law.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision to evict the defendants.
Case No. 361/9263/21 dated 26/03/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is a serviceman’s appeal against the decision of the housing commission of the military unit to remove him from the housing register and a demand to reinstate him on this register.
2. The court of cassation, reversing the decisions of the lower courts, was guided by the fact that the dispute arose in connection with the plaintiff’s military service, which is a type of public service. The court noted that the state provides social guarantees for servicemen, in particular, the right to housing, and disputes regarding the implementation of these guarantees fall under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The court emphasized that since the plaintiff believes that his right to housing was
that it was violated precisely due to military service, then this dispute should be considered under the rules of administrative procedure. The court also took into account the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, outlined in other resolutions, regarding the jurisdiction of administrative courts in disputes related to public service. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly considered the case under the rules of civil procedure, violating the norms of procedural law. **:** The court noted that it departs from the previous position, which was outlined in other decisions of the Supreme Court, regarding the consideration of such disputes under the rules of civil procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and closed the proceedings in the case, explaining to the plaintiff the right to apply to the administrative court to resolve the dispute.
Case No. 161/2205/23 dated 04/08/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage, recognition of property as jointly acquired property, and the right of ownership to real estate.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that she maintained a joint household with the defendant, had a common budget, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in a married couple. The court noted that the testimony of witnesses is of a general nature and does not contain specific facts, and joint photographs and vacations are not sufficient evidence to establish the fact of living as one family without registration of marriage. The appellate court agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance, emphasizing that in order to recognize persons as being in actual marital relations, it is necessary to prove the fact of cohabitation, the existence of a joint household, and mutual rights and obligations inherent in a married couple. The court of cassation also supported these conclusions, indicating that it does not have the authority to establish the circumstances of the case and re-evaluate the evidence, which has already been properly assessed by the courts of previous instances. Regarding the costs of legal assistance, the appellate court partially satisfied the defendant’s application, reducing the amount, taking into account the principle of proportionality and the criteria of reasonableness of the amount of expenses.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeals and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 745/582/21 dated 04/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a inheritance contract concluded between the deceased and the defendant, on the grounds that the defendant did not fulfill the terms of this contract.
2. The court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff, who is not a party to the inheritance contract, did not prove how this contract violates her rights and interests. The court noted that failure to fulfill the terms of the inheritance contract
constitutes a ground for its termination, not invalidation, and that the plaintiff did not prove that at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the parties’ expression of will was not free and did not correspond to their internal will. The court also indicated that the very fact that the defendant did not register ownership of the disputed apartment does not indicate that the transaction was not aimed at the actual occurrence of legal consequences. Additionally, the court rejected the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation by the appellate court of the right to participate in a court hearing via video conference, as the technical risks are borne by the participant who filed the corresponding application.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the previous instances without changes and dismissed the cassation appeal.
Case No. 274/899/24 dated 04/03/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of spouses, where a third party (the father of one of the spouses) is trying to recognize an apartment purchased during the marriage as his property, claiming that he provided the funds for its purchase.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which upheld the ruling of the court of first instance refusing to accept the amended statement of claim of the third party. The court noted that according to procedural law, the plaintiff has the right to change the subject matter or grounds of the claim before the start of the case on the merits, but simultaneous change of both the subject matter and the grounds of the claim is not allowed, as it is in fact a new claim. In this case, the court considered the amended statement of claim of the third party as an attempt to file a new claim, since it contained independent substantive law requirements that were not stated in the original claim, as well as other circumstances and legal norms that justify these requirements. The court also emphasized that the consolidation of claims is possible only in one statement of claim when applying to the court, and not by filing a new claim after the opening of proceedings in the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the third party and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 905/291/23 dated 03/25/2025
Good day! I would be happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Donetsk region to the Limited Liability Company “Konstantinovka Plant of Metallurgical Equipment” within the bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which partially overturned the decision of the court of first instance on the full satisfaction of the tax authority’s claims. The appellate court based its decision on the fact that the enterprise was located in the territory of possible hostilities in 2022, which gave it the right to benefits for the payment of land tax and real estate tax in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which were in effect at that time. The court
the court of cassation emphasized that the application of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine, which came into force later, would be a violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of laws in time, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. Also, the court of cassation noted that the fact that the enterprise did not submit clarifying declarations does not affect its right to benefits, since the benefit arose on the basis of the law. The court of cassation emphasized that the tax authority did not provide sufficient arguments to overturn the decision of the court of appeal.
3. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal, which partially refused to recognize the monetary claims of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Donetsk region.
Case No. 916/293/24 dated 04/01/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of leaving without consideration the claim of the International Charitable Organization “Ecology-Law-Human” (ICO “ELH”) against the Russian Federation for compensation for damage caused to the environment of the “Kamyanska Sich” National Nature Park as a result of armed aggression.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of previous instances, based on the following:
* ICO “ELH” is a public organization that can represent the interests of its members or other persons only in cases stipulated by the statute and the law.
* In this case, ICO “ELH” actually filed a claim in the interests of the state of Ukraine against another state, demanding compensation for damage to the income of the State Budget of Ukraine.
* According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the state is a representative of the people and has the right to represent the interests of the entire society, and not just a part of it.
* The Law of Ukraine “On Environmental Protection” stipulates that public organizations in environmental matters usually represent the interests of society against the state, and not in its interests.
* The state exercises its powers through the bodies it has created, and natural resources are transferred to the management of other persons authorized to protect the relevant rights.
* ICO “ELH” is not authorized to file claims in the interests of the state of Ukraine, unlike state bodies within the competence of which are issues in the field of environment, or the prosecutor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the ICO “Ecology-Law-Human” and upheld the decisions of the previous instance courts.
Case No. 137/565/15-к dated 04/10/2025
Of course, here is an analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding the conviction of a person under Part 2 of Article 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (grievous bodily injury resulting in the death of the victim).
The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defense counsel, motivating this by the fact that the court of appeal did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the appeal.
In particular, the Supreme Court points out that the appellate court should have carefully examined the legality and validity of the first instance court’s verdict, paying attention to all significant aspects that could have influenced the correctness of the qualification of the convicted person’s actions and the imposition of punishment. Also, the court of cassation draws attention to the need to choose a preventive measure in the form of detention, considering the severity of the crime and possible risks provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules during the consideration of criminal proceedings, as this is a guarantee of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of all participants in the process. The need for a new appellate review is due to the identified violations that could lead to an incorrect resolution of the case.
Court decision: to cancel the appellate court’s decision and order a new trial in the court of appellate instance, choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention for the accused.
Case No. 646/4294/23 dated 04/10/2025
Good day! Let’s consider the Supreme Court’s decision in more detail.
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s appeal against the appellate court’s decision regarding a person convicted under Part 4 of Article 187 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (robbery committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, combined with entry into a dwelling, other premises or storage, or that caused serious bodily harm).
2. The Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, canceled the appellate court’s decision, and ordered a new trial in the appellate instance. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments that the Supreme Court used from the operative part of the decision, as the full text of the resolution will be announced later. Usually, such decisions are made in cases where the appellate court has committed significant violations of the criminal procedural law, incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, or did not take into account important circumstances of the case that could affect the legality and validity of the court decision.
3. The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s decision and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance.
Case No. 362/1717/21 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is an appeal against the decision of the housing commission of the military unit regarding the date of registration of the plaintiff for housing.
2. The court of first instance satisfied the claim, and the appellate court refused to open appellate proceedings, believing that the military unit, as a subject of power, has no right to defer payment of court fees due to limited funding. The Supreme Court, overturning the appellate court’s decision, emphasized that the refusal to open appellate proceedings due to non-payment of court fees is a violation of procedural rules, since the consequence of failure to remedy the deficiencies of the appeal is its return, and not a refusal to open it.
those proceedings. The court of cassation emphasized that failure to eliminate the shortcomings of the appeal cannot be the basis for refusing to open appellate proceedings, since the list of grounds for such refusal is exhaustive and defined by Article 299 of the CAS of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case back to the appellate instance for continued consideration.
Case No. 320/7062/24 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices by which the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv region reduced the amount of budget reimbursement of VAT and negative VAT value declared by Brand Property LLC.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, noting that Brand Property LLC provided sufficient documents confirming the legitimacy of the formation of the tax credit, in particular, customs declarations, which are primary documents confirming the payment of VAT upon import of goods. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not provide evidence that would refute the reality of the economic operations performed, and references to the riskiness of the counterparty are not a sufficient basis for refusing to recognize the tax credit. The court also noted that the taxpayer should not be held liable for violations committed by its counterparties, unless its awareness and concerted actions with them are proven. In addition, the court pointed out the inadmissibility of the tax authority’s conclusions made solely on the basis of database analysis without conducting reconciliation checks and analysis of primary documents.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Kyiv region and left the decisions of the previous courts unchanged.
Case No. 990/9/24 dated 04/08/2025
Good day! Here is my analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Council of Justice on the dismissal of the Head of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine.
2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the court’s arguments from the provided excerpt.
3. The court completely rejected the claim of PERSON_1, upholding the decision of the High Council of Justice on his dismissal.
Case No. 990/111/24 dated 04/08/2025
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU).
2. Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand the court’s arguments from the provided excerpt of the decision, as there is no reasoning part. It can only be stated that the court heard the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, conducted the case in simplified proceedings, and made a decision. To understand the court’s position, it is necessary to analyze the full
the reasoning for the refusal to satisfy the claim is set out. Without the full text of the decision, it is impossible to understand whether the court deviated from previous legal positions of the Supreme Court.
3. The court refused to satisfy the claim of PERSON_1 against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine.
**Case No. 907/375/24 dated 03/26/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the termination of the contract of sale of a share in the authorized capital of the company, the recovery of this share from the new owners, and the determination of the amount of the authorized capital and the shares of the participants.
2. The court refused to satisfy the claim because:
* The contract of sale of the share was fully executed at the time of its conclusion, and the agreement on additional arrangements is not an amendment to the main contract, but a separate obligation.
* The plaintiff did not prove the circumstances that would serve as a basis for terminating the agreement on additional arrangements, in particular, the term for payment of part of the payments has not occurred.
* The plaintiff chose an inappropriate method of protection, since it is impossible to recover the share from the new owners, and the proper method is to recover the unpaid funds.
* The new owners of the share are bona fide acquirers, since they acquired it on the basis of paid contracts, and the plaintiff gave consent to their conclusion.
* The court of cassation instance noted that the conclusions set out in the resolutions of the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the appellant relate to legal relations that are not similar to the legal relations in the case under review.
3. The court of cassation instance upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances and dismissed the cassation appeal.
**Case No. 520/25870/23 dated 04/09/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for late registration of tax invoices in the Unified Register of Tax Invoices.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the appellate court, emphasizing the importance of the correct application of the norms of the Tax Code of Ukraine (TCU) regarding penalties for late registration of tax invoices. The court noted that during the period of quarantine established to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a moratorium was in effect on the application of such sanctions, but with the introduction of martial law, this moratorium was suspended. The court also indicated that Law No. 2876-IX, which reduced the amount of penalties, does not have retroactive effect, therefore it applies only to tax invoices whose deadline for registration occurred after its entry into force. It is important that the court emphasized the need to establish the circumstances regarding each tax invoice separately, taking into account the date of its compilation and registration, as well as whether it falls under the “quarantine” moratorium.
ію or subject to the norms governing the period of martial law. Since the courts of previous instances did not properly investigate these circumstances, the case was sent for a new trial.
3. The court decided to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and send the case back to the court of first instance for a new trial to establish all the circumstances of the case and apply the correct legal norms.
Case No. 372/466/20 dated 04/02/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions for the sale of property, the protocol of the electronic auctions, the act of a private executor, the certificate of acquisition of real estate, the cancellation of decisions on state registration, and the entry of a decision on ownership as invalid.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling because the appellate court returned the appeal, without establishing the circle of heirs of the plaintiff, who died during the consideration of the case, and without involving the legal successor in the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the court is obliged to involve the legal successor of the party in the case if the disputed legal relations allow for legal succession. The court also took into account that at the time of the plaintiff’s death, his minor daughter was registered with him at the same address, which, according to the Civil Code of Ukraine, is considered acceptance of the inheritance. Also, the court of cassation drew attention to the fact that the plaintiff, when applying to the court with the claim, referred to the fact that his daughter has the right to use the disputed real estate. Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court prematurely returned the appeal without ensuring proper protection of the heir’s rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case to the appellate court for further consideration.
Case No. 299/3874/22 dated 04/02/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
Subject of the dispute: Consideration of an application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in the court of cassation.
The court granted the application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance, as the applicant provided sufficient evidence of incurring such expenses. The court took into account that the cassation appeal was satisfied, and the previous decision of the appellate court was overturned. The court also noted that the other party did not file objections to the amount of expenses or their reduction. The court proceeded from the criteria of reality and reasonableness of attorney’s fees, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the financial situation of the parties. The court took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the reimbursement of court costs, and also analyzed information regarding the nature and scope of the work performed by the attorney, considering it justified.
Court decision: The application for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance is granted.
лено, 7,000 hryvnias were recovered from the Vynohradiv Department of the State Executive Service in favor of the applicant.
Case No. 522/23609/20 dated 04/02/2025
Good day! Of course, I will analyze this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of an apartment from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court granted the claim, recovering the apartment from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, as it found that the apartment had left the plaintiff’s possession illegally, without his will. The court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the apartment, and the defendant did not acquire ownership of it, since the previous transactions regarding the apartment were declared invalid. The court also took into account that the interference with the defendant’s right of ownership is proportional, as it is aimed at returning the property to the legal owner. In addition, the court noted that the plaintiff did not miss the statute of limitations, as he became aware of the violation of his right only from the appellate court’s decision. The court also took into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the protection of property rights.
3. The court decided to recover the apartment from the defendant and transfer it to the ownership of the plaintiff.
Case No. 733/1526/19 dated 04/01/2025
Good day! Let’s analyze the Supreme Court’s decision in the traffic accident case.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the verdict of conviction of a person for violation of traffic rules, which caused the death of the victim.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not properly assess the expert opinions provided by the defense, which contradicted the expert opinions of the prosecution regarding the place of the collision of vehicles. The court of first instance did not substantiate why it preferred some expert opinions over others, and the appellate court did not refute the arguments of the defense regarding these circumstances. Also, the appellate court did not provide convincing arguments as to why it rejected the expert opinions provided by the defense in the appellate instance, which indicated the victim’s guilt in the traffic accident. The court emphasized the need to comply with the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the court’s obligation to investigate all the circumstances of the case, assessing each piece of evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and ordered a new trial in the court of appellate instance, releasing the convicted person from custody.
Case No. 756/5460/23 dated 04/02/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for property and moral damage caused as a result of a traffic accident.
2. The court of cassation established that compensation for property damage by a person whose liability is insured is possible only if the insurer is not obliged to pay compensation or if the amount of damage exceeds the limit of liability
of the insurer; in the latter case, the liability of the policyholder is limited to the difference between the actual damage and the insurance compensation. The court noted that the court of appeal exceeded the bounds of the arguments of the appeal by overturning the decision of the court of first instance in full, instead of resolving the dispute on the merits of the claims brought directly against the person at fault in the traffic accident. The court also emphasized that the insurer is a proper defendant only within the limits of the insurance amount, and the liability of the perpetrator of the traffic accident is limited to the difference between the actual damage and the insurance compensation. Regarding moral damages, the court agreed with the appellate court, taking into account the severity of the plaintiff’s bodily injuries and mental suffering, determining the amount of compensation at UAH 30,000.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling in the part of compensation for property damage, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court, and in the part of compensation for moral damages, left the ruling unchanged.
Case No. 369/15321/20 dated 02/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is compensation for damage caused by a traffic accident between an insurance company that paid insurance compensation under a CASCO agreement and the person at fault in the traffic accident.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, proceeded from the following:
* An insurer who has paid insurance compensation under a property insurance agreement has the right to claim against the person responsible for the damage caused, within the limits of the compensation paid.
* Compensation for damage by a person whose liability is insured under a compulsory civil liability insurance agreement is possible only in cases where the insurer did not have an obligation to pay insurance compensation or the amount of damage caused exceeds the insurer’s liability limit.
* The defendant did not provide evidence to refute the calculation of the amount of insurance compensation provided by the plaintiff and did not prove the illegality of applying the physical depreciation coefficient in calculating the insurance payment.
* The appellate court mistakenly included the deductible in the amount of compensation, as it is not included in the amount of insurance compensation paid by the insurer to the victim under a property insurance agreement.
* The defendant did not exercise his right to conduct an examination to determine the value of the material damage caused to the car owner as a result of the traffic accident.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the decisions of the previous courts in terms of motivation and reducing the amount of compensation to be recovered from the defendant.
Case No. 524/2062/22 dated 02/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
The subject of the dispute is the recognition of certificates of inheritance as invalid.
inheritance by law and cancellation of decisions on state registration of ownership of shares in a residential building.
The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances to refuse the claim, but changed the reasoning part of the decisions. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove the violation of her rights by the issuance of certificates of inheritance, since the subject of inheritance was shares in the right of common partial ownership of a residential building, and not specific real estate objects. The court emphasized that the notary’s indication in the description of the components of the residential building about the illegally increased extension does not legalize it and does not indicate the recognition of ownership of it by the heirs. At the same time, the court indicated that the claim for cancellation of state registration of ownership, carried out on the basis of the disputed certificates, is not a proper way to protect the plaintiff’s rights, since the choice of an improper method of protection is an independent basis for refusing the claim. The court also took into account that the possibility of protecting the rights of a co-owner does not depend on challenging the certificate of inheritance issued to another co-owner.
The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, changing the reasoning parts of the decisions of the courts of previous instances, and leaving them unchanged in the other part.
Case No. 810/1961/16 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the tax authority to submit a conclusion on VAT refund and the recovery of penalties for late refund.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances did not properly assess the arguments of the tax authority regarding the taxpayer’s missed deadline for appealing to the court with a claim for VAT refund and recovery of penalties, in particular, did not take into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the six-month deadline for appealing to the court in such cases. The court of first instance assessed the arguments of the tax authority only from the point of view of correspondence between the parties, and the court of appeal did not assess them at all. The court of cassation emphasized that the courts must first check compliance with the deadline for appealing to the court, and then proceed to consider the validity of the claims on the merits. Since the court of appeal did not fulfill this obligation, the cassation court cannot correct this, as it does not have the authority to establish the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court to eliminate the identified shortcomings.
Case No. 420/1907/20 dated 04/09/2025
Of course, here is the analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision by which LLC “Euro-Tsvetmet” was charged penalties for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court, satisfying the claims, proceeded from
based on the fact that Euro-Tsvetmet LLC timely submitted tax invoices for registration but received receipts of errors due to the alleged absence of an agreement on the recognition of electronic documents. At the same time, the controlling authority itself confirmed that the agreement was valid. The court emphasized that the application of penalties is possible only if there is fault on the part of the taxpayer, and in this case, the delay in registration occurred due to the fault of the controlling authority. The court also noted that an offense is a culpable act of the taxpayer, and Euro-Tsvetmet LLC took all necessary actions for the timely registration of tax invoices. Considering these circumstances, the court concluded that the penalty was unlawfully applied to the taxpayer.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
[**Case No. 910/14228/21 dated 08/04/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126500979)
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of trademarks as invalid and the prohibition of their use by the defendant.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court, which refused to satisfy the claim of KAESER KOMPRESSOREN SE, arguing that the appellate court, unlike the court of first instance, fully and comprehensively examined all available evidence, including expert opinions, and gave them due consideration. The court of cassation emphasized that it does not have the right to re-evaluate evidence that has already been evaluated by the appellate court, and that the arguments of the cassation appeal are reduced only to disagreement with the assessment of evidence, and not to violations of substantive or procedural law. Also, the court of cassation noted that the appellate court reasonably rejected the expert opinions provided by the plaintiff, as they did not meet the requirements of comprehensiveness, completeness, objectivity, and validity. The court of cassation also took into account the principle of res judicata, which requires respect for final judgments.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
[**Case No. 908/1556/22 dated 09/04/2025**](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126500978)
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a commission agreement and a counterclaim for the recovery of advance payment for unrendered services.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the previous instances, which satisfied the initial claim of the entrepreneur for the recovery of debt from the company under the commission agreement, since the company did not provide sufficient evidence of the absence of debt, and also dismissed the counterclaim of the company for the recovery of advance payment from the entrepreneur. The court of cassation noted that the courts of previous instances, although not explicitly stated, clarified the circumstances regarding the reality of the business transaction.
, namely the provision of services specified in the act of performance, in particular, investigated the issues of signing the act, the absence of claims regarding the scope, term, cost and quality of services, as well as partial payment. The court also took into account that the company did not provide evidence to refute the provision of services by the entrepreneur, or to prove the provision of such services by another person, or the independent performance of such services by the company. In addition, the court of cassation rejected the company’s arguments about the entrepreneur’s lack of the necessary qualification certificate, since none of the services provided required such a certificate.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous courts.
Case No. 405/317/21 dated 02/04/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the determination of the place of residence of a minor child and the recovery of alimony for her maintenance between parents who live separately after the dissolution of the marriage.
2. The court of appeal, overturning the decision of the court of first instance, proceeded from the following arguments: firstly, the child’s opinion about wanting to live with the father is unconvincing due to her young age, long-term residence with the father, and limited communication with the mother; secondly, the court took into account the conclusion of the guardianship authority on the expediency of determining the child’s place of residence with the mother; thirdly, the court took into account the absence of evidence of improper performance of parental duties by the mother; fourthly, the court emphasized the importance of maternal attention and close contact between the mother and daughter for the harmonious development of the child; fifthly, the court noted that determining the child’s place of residence with the mother does not deprive the father of the right to participate in the child’s upbringing. The court of appeal, taking into account all the circumstances of the case in their entirety, concluded that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the mother.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
Case No. 380/28949/23 dated 09/04/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the conclusion of the State Audit Service of Ukraine (SASU) on violations by the Rava-Ruska Professional Lyceum of legislation in the field of public procurement.
2. The court of cassation considered the issue of whether the SASU rightfully established a violation on the part of the lyceum due to the fact that the winner of the tender (TOV “FOXY ART”) provided an incomplete package of documents, namely: an information certificate from the Unified State Register of Persons Who Have Committed Corruption or Corruption-Related Offenses, only for the legal entity, and not for its manager, as required by the tender documentation. The court noted that although the lyceum violated the requirements of the tender documentation, it did not reject
having disregarded the proposal of LLC “FOXY ART”, this violation is not formal, as the customer should have taken into account the provided information and, in case of detecting discrepancies, acted in accordance with the established procedure. The court also took into account that at the time of providing the certificate, access to the Unified State Register of Persons Who Have Committed Corruption or Corruption-Related Offenses was open, which obliged the customer to verify information about the head of LLC “FOXY ART”. The court agreed with the previous court instances that there are grounds for partially satisfying the claim, as the SACS did not take into account all the circumstances of the case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the SACS, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
Case No. 922/1799/24 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
The subject of the dispute in this case was the recognition as invalid of the decision of the general meeting of a religious organization to change the head and the cancellation of the state registration of these changes.
The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, for the following main reasons: firstly, the plaintiff did not prove that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases, since the actual circumstances and legal relations in the cases cited by the plaintiff differ from this case. The court noted that for cassation review, it is not enough to simply refer to the conclusions of the Supreme Court, but it is necessary to prove that these conclusions should have been applied in similar legal relations. Secondly, the Supreme Court did not establish violations of the norms of procedural law by the courts of previous instances, which would have made it impossible to establish the actual circumstances of the case. In particular, the court of cassation recognized that the appellate court properly notified the plaintiff of the date, time and place of the hearing, and the rejection of the motion of the plaintiff’s representative to postpone the hearing was justified. The court also emphasized that it does not have the right to independently examine evidence and establish new circumstances of the case.
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s cassation appeal.
Case No. 160/7176/24 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the tax notice-decision on the application of penalties for violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the violation of the terms of registration of tax invoices is a continuing offense that began from the moment of expiration of the deadline for registration. Law No. 2876-IX, which amended the Tax Code regarding the terms of registration and the amount of penalties, does not have retroactive effect, as
unless otherwise expressly provided by law. Thus, reduced penalties can only apply to tax invoices registered in violation of the deadlines after this law comes into force, or to those whose registration period has not yet expired at the time it comes into force. The court also emphasized that the provisions of paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine, which establish extended registration periods and reduced penalties for the period of martial law, cannot be construed as having retroactive effect. In addition, the court pointed out the absence of a conflict between general rules (Articles 120-1 and 201 of the Tax Code of Ukraine) and temporary ones (paragraphs 89 and 90 of subsection 2 of section XX “Transitional Provisions” of the Tax Code of Ukraine), since the amount of penalties depends on the composition of the offense committed by the taxpayer.
2. The Supreme Court dismissed the enterprise’s cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s decision remained unchanged.
**Case No. 904/5764/23 (911/114/22) dated 04/01/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the prosecutor’s office in the interests of the territorial community of non-residential premises from LLC “Hudini-M”, which acquired them at an electronic auction.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which dismissed the prosecutor’s office’s claim, arguing that the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the initial disposal of property from the ownership of the territorial community, but focused only on the fact of the acquisition of property by LLC “Hudini-M” at electronic auctions. The court noted that the courts had to investigate the legality of the first alienation of property, which took place on the basis of a court decision that was subsequently overturned. Also, the courts did not establish whether the return of property to the territorial community meets public interests and whether it places an excessive burden on LLC “Hudini-M” as a bona fide purchaser. The court emphasized that it is necessary to take into account the balance of interests of the community and the acquirer, as well as the possibility of compensation for damages to LLC “Hudini-M” by previous owners. The court indicated that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the legal conclusions set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case where public auctions were the first transaction of alienation of property, and not the last, as in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts and sent the case back to the court of first instance for a new trial to clarify all the circumstances of the case.
**Case No. 640/3033/17 dated 03/18/2025**
Good day! I will gladly help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the appeal of the verdict of the court of first instance and the decision of the appellate court regarding the conviction of PERSON_7, PERSON_6 and PERSON_13 for committing a number of serious criminal offenses, including intentional murder, robbery, banditry and other crimes.
ni.
3. The Supreme Court, upholding the decisions of the previous instances without changes, proceeded from the fact that the guilt of the convicts in committing the crimes imputed to them was proven by proper and admissible evidence, assessed by the courts in compliance with the requirements of the criminal procedure law. The court of cassation instance verified the arguments of the cassation appeals of the convicts and their defenders, but did not establish significant violations of the criminal procedure law that would cast doubt on the legality and validity of the court decisions. In particular, the court rejected arguments regarding the inadmissibility of certain evidence, incompleteness of the judicial review, and the inconsistency of the assigned punishment with the severity of the crimes. The court also took into account the position of the prosecutor, who considered the decisions of the previous instances lawful and well-founded. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that there were no grounds for overturning or changing the appealed court decisions.
4. The Supreme Court decided to dismiss the cassation appeals, and to leave the judgment of the court of first instance and the ruling of the court of appeal regarding PERSON_7, PERSON_6, and PERSON_13 unchanged.
**Case No. 333/11505/23 dated 04/09/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the rulings of the courts of previous instances regarding the application of compulsory medical measures to a person who committed socially dangerous acts in a state of insanity.
2. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the defender, motivating it by the need to close the criminal proceedings in the part of committing a socially dangerous act under Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (theft committed in large amounts), since at the time of the case consideration in the cassation procedure, the law establishing the criminal illegality of this act became invalid. This is due to the fact that the amount of large theft was changed by legislation, and the act committed by PERSON_7 no longer falls under this qualification. The court took into account the provisions of Clause 4-1, Part 1, Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which provides for the closure of criminal proceedings in the event of the law establishing the criminal illegality of the act becoming invalid. In another part, concerning other socially dangerous acts under Part 1 of Article 125, Article 126-1, Article 390-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the courts of previous instances acted lawfully, and there are no grounds for overturning their decisions.
3. The Supreme Court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal of the defender, changing the decisions of the courts of previous instances, closing the criminal proceedings in the part of Part 4 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and upholding the decision in the other part.
**Case No. 916/4522/23 dated 04/01/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the lease agreement as extended and the recognition of the lease right for the Private Enterprise “TRANS-EXPO” (PE “TRANS-EXPO”).
2. The court
The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, stating that the lease agreement of state property, concluded before 01.02.2020, but the term of which expires after 01.07.2020, is regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Lease of State and Municipal Property” dated 03.10.2019 No. 157-ІХ. The court noted that the appellate court correctly took into account that the lessor expressed objections to the extension of the lease agreement, which is the basis for its termination. The court also emphasized that a simple request from the lessee to bring the agreement into compliance with the requirements of current legislation is not an automatic basis for its extension, especially when all the necessary conditions stipulated by law are absent, in particular, the consent of the lessor. The court of cassation also noted that the transfer of rent is not an unconditional basis for extending the agreement. The court of cassation emphasized that it cannot re-evaluate the evidence that has already been evaluated by the courts of previous instances.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PE “TRANS-EXPO”, and the decision of the appellate court remained unchanged.
Case No. 581/336/20 dated 04/07/2025
Good day! I am happy to help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the submission of the Sumy Court of Appeal to send the materials of the criminal proceedings to another court of appeal.
2. The Supreme Court granted the submission of the Sumy Court of Appeal, guided by Articles 34 and 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court took into account the need to ensure an objective and impartial consideration of the case. The decision to send the materials to the Poltava Court of Appeal was made in order to avoid possible conflicts of interest or doubts about the fairness of the trial. This decision is based on the principles of territoriality and specialization of the judicial system, as well as on the need to comply with procedural guarantees for all participants in criminal proceedings. The court also noted that the full text of the ruling will be announced later, and the decision takes effect from the moment of its pronouncement and is not subject to appeal.
3. The court ruled to grant the submission of the Sumy Court of Appeal and send the materials of the criminal proceedings to the Poltava Court of Appeal for consideration on the merits.
Case No. 420/22451/24 dated 04/09/2025
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the accrual by the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Odesa region of a penalty to “VELES-AGRO LTD” LLC for violation of the terms of settlements in the field of foreign economic activity.
2. The court of first instance granted the claim, considering that from January 1, 2021, the penalty for violation of currency legislation falls under the quarantine benefits that exempt from the accrual of penalties. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that the quarantine
no exemptions apply to penalties for violating the terms of settlement in export-import transactions. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that quarantine exemptions do not exempt from the payment of penalties for violations of currency legislation, emphasizing that it had already departed from its previous position on this issue in case No. 240/25642/22. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate court did not consider the taxpayer’s arguments regarding the absence of the fact of violation of settlement terms and the incorrect determination of these terms by the tax authority.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate instance.
**Case No. 725/4115/21 dated 02/04/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the division of property of a married couple who were married and acquired various properties, including apartments, vehicles, and other assets.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, was guided by the following arguments:
* Claims for recognition of property as jointly owned property are not a proper way to protect the rights of the parties in the division of property, since the purpose is precisely the division, not the statement of the fact of joint ownership.
* A claim to invalidate transactions is an ineffective remedy if a party seeks only monetary compensation for their share in the joint property.
* The appellate court did not take into account the circumstances that are relevant for deviating from the equality of shares in the division of property, in particular, the needs of a child with a disability and the adequacy of the amount of alimony to meet her needs.
* The appellate court did not pay attention to the fact that one of the spouses alienated the apartment, without clarifying all the circumstances of the case and without assessing the arguments of the other party regarding this alienation.
* The appellate court did not take into account that evasion of child support is grounds for interference in the property sphere of one of the spouses.
* The court of cassation emphasized the need to take into account the conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the application of legal norms in similar legal relations.
3. The court decided to partially satisfy the cassation appeal, overturning the decision of the appellate court in the part of recognizing the property as jointly owned property and remanding the case for a new trial to the court of appeal in the part of deviating from the equality of shares, division of property, recovery of compensation and distribution of court costs.
**Case No. 641/1845/22 dated 03/04/2025**
Good day! Of course, I will help you understand this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the motion of PERSON_1 to recover expenses for professional legal assistance from the Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank “PrivatBank”.
2. The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, dismissed PERSON_1’s motion, as it was filed after the lapse
concluded that the person had missed the deadline set by Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely, five days after the court decision, and the applicant did not request the extension of this deadline. The Supreme Court agreed with these conclusions, noting that if the deadline for submitting evidence of incurred court costs is missed, the application for the allocation of court costs is dismissed without consideration if the reasons for missing the deadline are not valid. The court also took into account that PERSON_1 did not raise the issue of renewing the missed deadline. The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement regarding the deadline and procedure for submitting evidence of the amount of court costs, established by Article 141 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, is mandatory.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485831](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485831) **Case No. 395/872/20 dated 02/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the appellate court’s ruling on recognizing the appeal as unfiled and its return due to non-payment of court fees.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the appellate court’s ruling, was guided by the following arguments:
* The right to appellate review is one of the fundamental principles of justice, and restrictions on this right must be proportionate and have a legitimate purpose.
* According to paragraph 5 of part two of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee”, no court fee is paid for filing an application for issuing an additional court decision.
* The court took into account previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, according to which persons are exempt from paying court fees not only for filing an application for issuing an additional court decision, but also for filing an appeal against an additional decision or a ruling on the refusal to satisfy the application for issuing an additional court decision.
* In this case, the appellate court mistakenly demanded the payment of a court fee for filing an appeal against the ruling on the refusal to issue an additional decision.
* The appellate court’s reference to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 915/955/15 is unfounded, since this case concerned a different issue – the payment of a court fee for the appellate review of a ruling on the refusal to satisfy a complaint against the actions of the executive service.
3. The Supreme Court decided to overturn the appellate court’s ruling and transfer the case to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485811](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485811) **Case No. 810/1961/16 dated 09/04/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the obligation of the tax authority to submit a conclusion on VAT refund and the recovery of penalties for late refund.
2. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, obliging the tax authority to submit a conclusion on VAT refund and recovering penalties, considering that the plaintiff had performed all the necessary actions for
receiving compensation. The appellate court did not assess the arguments of the controlling authority regarding the missed deadline for appealing to the court. The Cassation Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not investigate the issue of the plaintiff’s compliance with the deadline for appealing to the court, in particular, did not assess the arguments of the controlling authority regarding the missed deadline for appealing to the court, taking into account the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the application of the six-month deadline for appealing to the court. The court of cassation instance noted that the courts should have checked whether the deadline for appealing to the court had been missed, and only then consider the case on its merits. Also, the court of cassation instance emphasized that in case of missing the deadline, the court should clarify the reasons for missing it and decide whether they are valid for restoring the deadline.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate instance.
**Case No. 643/10705/21 dated 03/26/2025**
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Kharkiv City Council to cancel the decision of the state registrar regarding the change in the area of a non-residential building and to oblige the defendants to bring the building back to its previous state after unauthorized reconstruction.
2. The court of first instance satisfied the claim, considering that the state registrar improperly verified the documents, and the defendants violated the legislation on improvement and carried out unauthorized construction. The appellate court overturned the decision of the first instance and closed the proceedings, deciding that the dispute is public-legal and subject to consideration in the administrative court, since it concerns the power management functions of the city council regarding the detection and elimination of unauthorized construction. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, noting that the Kharkiv City Council appealed to the court as the owner of the land plot, and not as a body exercising power management functions. The dispute concerns the protection of the right of communal ownership of land, and not the exercise of powers to control urban planning activities. The Supreme Court emphasized that the city council did not make mandatory decisions or prescriptions, and the dispute is related to resolving the issue of real right.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new consideration to the appellate court.
**Case No. 921/162/24 dated 04/09/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the “Rodyna Mekh” Farm Enterprise against the Husyatyn Settlement Council, “Agrarian Krai” LLC, and “Kseni-Ya” FE for recognizing the absence of a lease right in other tenants, recognizing the conclusion of an additional agreement on the renewal of the land lease agreement, and making changes to the lease agreement.
2. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the appellate court, which completely refused to satisfy the claim.
Farming Enterprise “Rodyna Mekh”, based on the following:
* Farming Enterprise “Rodyna Mekh” has not proven with sufficient evidence the violation of its preferential right to renew the lease agreement, as the Husyatyn Settlement Council lawfully refused to renew the agreement, and subsequently, after the expiration of the agreement, divided the land plot and leased it to other farms based on the results of land auctions.
* The court of appeal reasonably pointed out that the obligations of the parties under the original lease agreement terminated due to the expiration of its term and the absence of the lessor’s will to renew it, which makes it impossible to conclude an additional agreement on the renewal of the lease agreement or amend it.
* The court of cassation did not find grounds for applying the legal conclusions referred to by the appellant, as they relate to other legal relations where the tenant’s preferential right was violated, and the lease agreement was valid.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must independently analyze legal relations and assess the relevance of applying the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in each specific case, considering the diversity of social relations and circumstances.
* The court also noted that the appellant’s arguments amount to the need to re-evaluate the evidence, which is beyond the scope of cassation review.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Farming Enterprise “Rodyna Mekh” and upheld the decision of the Western Commercial Court of Appeal.
Case No. 438/2053/23 dated 04/03/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the prosecutor’s cassation appeal against the appellate court’s decision to amend the first instance court’s verdict regarding PERSON_7, accused of theft and illegal possession of narcotic drugs.
2. The court of cassation established that the appellate court reasonably closed the criminal proceedings regarding the charge against PERSON_7 for petty theft due to the decriminalization of these acts. However, the appellate court did not take into account that, as a result, the scope of the charge was significantly reduced, which required a review of the punishment for theft on a large scale. In addition, the appellate court incorrectly applied the rules for sentencing for multiple crimes and verdicts, as the cable theft was committed before the previous verdict was issued, which required the application of other provisions of the Criminal Code. The court of cassation also emphasized that when determining the punishment for multiple verdicts, it is necessary to accurately determine the unserved portion of the punishment under the previous verdict.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, amended the appellate court’s decision, reduced the term of punishment for theft, recalculated the punishment for multiple crimes and verdicts, and ultimately sentenced PERSON_7 to imprisonment for a term of 7 years and 1 month.
Case No. 464/4136/23 of 04/02/2025
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal by an individual against the decision of the courts of previous instances to close the proceedings regarding the claims against the NERCMP regarding the establishment of the fact of entering false information into an official document and the recognition of electricity distribution and supply agreements as invalid.
2. The courts of previous instances closed the proceedings regarding the claims against the NERCMP, motivating this by the fact that the NERCMP is a subject of power, and disputes with such subjects must be considered in the order of administrative proceedings. The courts proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff is appealing against the actions of the NERCMP as a regulator in the field of energy, which falls under the jurisdiction of administrative courts. The Court of Appeal also noted that the subject of the dispute is the protection of consumer rights, and since the NERCMP performs public-administrative functions, the dispute must be resolved in the order of administrative proceedings. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions, indicating that the courts did not take into account that the plaintiff’s claims are not related to legal relations of a public-legal nature between him and the NERCMP, and do not indicate that he is appealing against the decisions, actions or inaction of the NERCMP as a body of state regulation of activities in the fields of energy and utilities. When closing the proceedings in the case, the courts of previous instances essentially proceeded only from the status of the NERCMP in the field of energy and utilities as a subject of public law, endowed with administrative functions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of previous instances in the part regarding the closure of proceedings regarding claims against the NERCMP and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
Case No. 446/483/19 of 04/02/2025
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of the decision of the executive committee of the city council and the state act on the right of ownership of a land plot that partially overlaps the lands of the railway.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the court of appeal that the plaintiff had chosen an ineffective way to protect his rights, since the recognition of the decision of the local self-government body and the state act as invalid in itself will not restore the violated land use right. The court emphasized that the proper method of protection in this case is a vindication claim, that is, reclaiming property from someone else’s illegal possession. The court also took into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that it is impossible to recognize the decision of a local self-government body as invalid if this leads to the deprivation of a person’s right of ownership to a part of the land plot that is not disputed. The court emphasized that the task of civil proceedings is the effective protection of violated rights, and the chosen method of protection must correspond to the content of the violated right and the nature of it.
of legal relations.
3. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal and left the appellate court’s decision unchanged.
**Case No. 260/4303/24 dated 08/04/2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the lawfulness of the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Zakarpattia region (MD PFU) to index the pension of PERSON_1 using certain coefficients to increase the average wage indicator.
2. The court of cassation, when considering the case, noted that pension indexation is an integral part of its calculation, and the state guarantees the indexation of incomes of the population to maintain a sufficient standard of living. The court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) has the right to determine the procedure for indexing pensions, but cannot establish a basic calculation value, as this contradicts the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”. The court indicated that the MD PFU acted not in accordance with the requirements of current legislation, accruing monthly surcharges to the pension instead of applying coefficients to increase the average wage indicator. At the same time, the court took into account the terms of appeal to the court established by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and limited the period for which recalculation of the pension is possible.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the actions of the MD PFU as illegal and obliging it to index the plaintiff’s pension from 01/01/2024 using the appropriate coefficients, and left the claims for the previous period without consideration.
**Case No. 908/584/24 dated 09/04/2025**
Of course, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the Private Enterprise “Kiparisservice-2013” and PERSON_1 of joint and several debt under the loan agreement, including the principal of the loan and interest.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to dismiss the claim. The appellate court reasonably noted that the plaintiff was unable to participate in court hearings for reasons beyond his control, namely: the plaintiff’s representative was not invited to participate in the court hearing via video conference on May 13, 2024, and the hearing on May 27, 2024, was held earlier than the plaintiff’s representative was notified. The court of cassation emphasized that proper notification of the date, time and place of the hearing is a mandatory condition for dismissing the claim. Also, the court of cassation noted that depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to exercise his right to judicial protection is unacceptable. The court of cassation rejected the arguments of the appellant, since they amount to a re-evaluation of the evidence, which goes beyondwithin the limits of his/her competence.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Private Enterprise “Kiparisservis-2013” and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Case No. 905/679/24 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is an analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of damages by way of recourse, where the municipal enterprise seeks to recover from a former official the losses it paid under a court decision due to environmental pollution.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court that the dispute between the municipal enterprise and its former chief engineer regarding compensation for damages caused to the enterprise as a result of improper performance of official duties has the characteristics of a labor dispute, not an economic dispute. The court took into account that the claims are based on the defendant’s failure to perform the duties stipulated in his job description, and not on his actions as an official of the enterprise’s management body. Also, the court noted that the municipal enterprise did not make management decisions regarding holding the defendant liable for the damages caused. Considering this, the court concluded that the dispute is not subject to consideration in the commercial court, since there is no corporate component and there are signs of labor relations. The court also rejected the appellant’s reference to previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as they concerned compensation for damage caused directly by an official of the management body in connection with the performance of his/her duties, which differs from the circumstances of this case.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision to close the proceedings in the case.
Case No. 200/14750/21 dated 04/09/2025
Certainly, here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices by which Fixes Trade LLC had the amount of VAT refund and the amount of negative VAT value reduced, as well as the requirement to oblige the tax authority to enter data on the agreed refund amount into the relevant register.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the conclusions of the tax authority regarding violations of Fixes Trade LLC are based on an erroneous inspection of warehouse premises, since representatives of the tax service visited the wrong address due to the existence of several streets with the same name in the city. The court emphasized that the tax authority did not prove the absence of inventory balances in the warehouses of Fixes Trade LLC, and the primary documents provided by the plaintiff confirm the reality of economic operations. The court also noted that the presence of representatives of the tax authority during the inventory is not mandatory, and Fixes Trade LLC provided the tax authority with the results of the inventory carried out.
Regarding the first judicial review:
3. The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous courts regarding the obligation of the tax authority to enter data on the agreed amount of reimbursement into the register, and left the decision unchanged in the rest.
**Case №910/6768/18 (910/3501/24) dated March 25, 2025**
Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the claim of the Subsidiary Enterprise “Avtomobilist” to invalidate the results of the auction for the sale of the right to claim receivables from this enterprise within the bankruptcy case of LLC “International Office and Hotel Center”.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decisions of the previous courts, stating that SE “Avtomobilist” is not a proper plaintiff in a dispute regarding the invalidation of auction results, since the circle of persons who have the right to appeal such results includes the seller, the auction winner, and the auction organizer. The court noted that the plaintiff did not prove what violations of the law were committed during the auction, and references to debt repayment after the auction are not grounds for its cancellation. Also, the court pointed out that the plaintiff incorrectly identified the circle of defendants, since the auction winner was not included among them. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the absence of a conclusion from the Supreme Court regarding the application of Article 82 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, since the circumstances referred to by the appellant arose after the auction.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
Regarding the second judicial review:
**Case №758/4281/25 dated April 9, 2025**
Good day! Let’s consider this court decision.
1. The subject of the dispute is the defense attorney’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings accusing a person of fraud on a particularly large scale from one court to another within different appellate districts.
2. The operative part of the ruling does not provide the court’s arguments. The text only shows that the defense attorney requested to transfer the case from one court to another within the jurisdiction of different appellate courts, but the court did not grant this motion. The reasons for this decision will be stated in the full text of the ruling, which will be announced later. At the moment, it can only be assumed that the court did not find grounds for transferring the case, as provided for in Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the issue of directing criminal proceedings from one court to another. Perhaps the court did not agree with the defense attorney’s arguments regarding the impossibility of an objective consideration of the case in the current court, or decided,
that the transfer of the case to another court would not contribute to a faster and more effective administration of justice.
3. The court ruled to deny the defense counsel’s motion to transfer the criminal proceedings from one court to another.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126502957](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126502957) **Case No. 138/3008/24 dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal.
2. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturning the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordering a new trial in the appellate court. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish the specific arguments of the court from the given operative part. Typically, the court of cassation reverses the decision of the appellate court if it has committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law, incorrectly applied the law of Ukraine on criminal liability, or failed to take into account circumstances that could affect the legality and validity of the court decision. It is possible that the appellate court took a formal approach to the consideration of the appeal, without examining all the arguments of the appellants, or committed procedural violations when returning it. For a more accurate analysis, the full text of the resolution is needed, which will state the reasons for the decision.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the return of the appeal and ordered a new trial in the court of appeal.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485658](https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126485658) **Case No. 280/111/25 dated 04/09/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the tax authority’s application for the recovery of funds from the enterprise for tax debt in the form of penalties for violation of the terms of settlements in the field of foreign economic activity.
2. The court dismissed the tax authority’s application without consideration because it was filed after the expiration of the 24-hour period established by Article 283 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU). The court noted that this period is calculated from the moment the circumstances that give rise to the appeal to the court are established, namely from the date of sending (delivery) of the tax notice to the taxpayer. Since the tax notice was sent on December 5, 2024, the last day for filing the application was January 5, 2025, and filing the application on January 6, 2025, is a missed deadline. The court emphasized that the rules on the postponement of deadlines in the event that their expiration falls on a weekend do not apply to the deadlines established by Article 283 of the CAPU, and these deadlines cannot be renewed. Also, the court referred to the previous practice of the Supreme Court, which confirms that the deadlines for filing applications in such cases are preclusive and not subject to renewal.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the tax authority’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
[https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1265
**Case No. 902/547/24 dated April 9, 2025**
Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of the actions of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” as unlawful in disconnecting LLC “Keramik-Vinnytsia” from electricity supply and the obligation to restore electricity supply.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the appellate court, which recognized the actions of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” as unlawful, since the company did not prove with proper evidence the fact of non-admission of its employees to the “Keramik-Vinnytsia” facility for inspection. The court noted that the act of non-admission, drawn up only by representatives of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” unilaterally, without the involvement of an unbiased person or video recording, cannot be considered proper evidence of refusal of admission. Also, the court rejected the arguments of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” that the shortcomings of the act are of a formal nature, since the requirements for drawing up the act are clearly defined by law as essential. In addition, the court did not take into account the assertion of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” about a telephone conversation with the head of “Keramik-Vinnytsia” due to the lack of evidence of its conduct. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court misinterpreted the provisions of the Commercial Metering Code of Electrical Energy regarding the mandatory presence of the consumer during inspections, but this did not affect the correctness of the final decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Vinnytsiaoblenergo” and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
**Case No. 160/26885/24 dated April 9, 2025**
Good day! Let’s consider the case of LLC “Ogirkovyi Baron” against the Main Department of the State Tax Service in the Dnipropetrovsk region regarding the appeal against the cancellation of licenses for retail trade in tobacco products.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instance courts on securing the claim, since they did not take into account that the cancellation of licenses for the sale of tobacco products does not completely stop the company’s activities, because it also engages in retail trade in food and beverages. The courts of previous instances did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments, did not establish grounds for obvious danger of causing harm to the rights and interests of the plaintiff, and also did not confirm with evidence that failure to take measures to secure the claim could significantly complicate the effective protection or make it impossible to restore the violated rights of the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that measures to secure the claim must be justified, and their necessity must be confirmed by evidence, which was not done in this case. The court also noted that the validity of the claim is not investigated at the stage of resolving the issue of securing the claim, but the courts must ensure that there is a real threat of non-execution of the court decision.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and rejected the application of LLC “Ogirkovyi Baron” to secure the claim.
